December 1981 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > December 1981 Decisions >
A.M. No. 2162-MJ December 14, 1981 - AGUILAR INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE v. ANASTACIO ZAMUCO:
FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. 2162-MJ. December 14, 1981.]
AGUILAR INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE, Complainant, v. HON. ANASTACIO ZAMUCO, Municipal Judge of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Complainant administratively charged respondent judge for habitual absenteeism and gross ignorance of the law alleging that as a result of his absences there were more than 100 pending cases in his sala; that he erroneously dismissed a criminal case for slander by mere affidavit of desistance by the therein complainant without the prior knowledge and consent of the fiscal; that he dismissed a criminal complaint for grave threat on the ground of absence of the complaining witness when the threat was made; that he assumed jurisdiction over a criminal case involving violation of the law on firearms and explosives which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal; and that he prohibited herein complainant as a Station Commander of the Integrated National Police to administer oaths. Upon investigation by the Deputy Court Administrator it was found that respondent had not been lagging behind in the disposal of the cases since most of those pending involved non-payment of Masagana loans where the accused could not be found; that the criminal case for slander was dismissed on the basis of the affidavit of desistance of the complainant alone since there was no fiscal who entered his appearance therein; that the case for grave threat was dismissed because the aggrieved party was not present at the time it was made; that respondent assumed jurisdiction over the criminal case regarding firearms and explosives only for the purpose of conducting a preliminary investigation; and that, respondent had not prohibited complainant from administering oath.
The Supreme Court found no basis to hold respondent administratively liable except for having dismissed the criminal case for grave threat on an erroneous ground for which he was reprimanded.
The Supreme Court found no basis to hold respondent administratively liable except for having dismissed the criminal case for grave threat on an erroneous ground for which he was reprimanded.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE; ABSENTEEISM RESULTING IN CLOGGED DOCKET; NOT A CASE OF. — It cannot be said that the respondent judge had a clogged docket by reason of his absences. Most of the criminal cases pending had been archived because the Aguilar Integrated National Police v. Hon. Zamuco, etc. persons charged of non-payment of the Masagana loans could not be arrested inasmuch as their whereabouts were not known.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE FISCAL. — It is not ignorance of the law to dismiss a criminal complaint on the basis alone of the affidavit of desistance and the Motion to Dismiss of the complainant where no fiscal had entered his appearance.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE FOR GRAVE THREAT ON ERRONEOUS GROUND; PENALTY. — The respondent judge committed an error when he dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat on the ground that the complainant was not present in his house at the time the accused shouted that he would kill the complainant. The crime of threat may be committed by indirect challenge to fight even if the complainant was absent when the threat was made. There is, however, no showing that the respondent judge dismissed the case for grave threat with a deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. Under the established facts of the case, the respondent judge should be reprimanded.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW ON FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES. — Municipal Courts had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of violations of the law on firearms and explosives provided that the Municipal Judge submitted a report to the Secretary of National Defense through the Provincial Commander outside the Greater Manila area. The accused was not apprehended, hence, the respondent judge could not conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation and no report to the Secretary of National Defense was submitted.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE FISCAL. — It is not ignorance of the law to dismiss a criminal complaint on the basis alone of the affidavit of desistance and the Motion to Dismiss of the complainant where no fiscal had entered his appearance.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE FOR GRAVE THREAT ON ERRONEOUS GROUND; PENALTY. — The respondent judge committed an error when he dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat on the ground that the complainant was not present in his house at the time the accused shouted that he would kill the complainant. The crime of threat may be committed by indirect challenge to fight even if the complainant was absent when the threat was made. There is, however, no showing that the respondent judge dismissed the case for grave threat with a deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. Under the established facts of the case, the respondent judge should be reprimanded.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW ON FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES. — Municipal Courts had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of violations of the law on firearms and explosives provided that the Municipal Judge submitted a report to the Secretary of National Defense through the Provincial Commander outside the Greater Manila area. The accused was not apprehended, hence, the respondent judge could not conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation and no report to the Secretary of National Defense was submitted.
D E C I S I O N
FERNANDEZ, J.:
In a complaint dated November 15, 1978, Pedro C. Gelido, Station Commander of the Aguilar Integrated National Police, Pangasinan, charged Judge Anastacio Zamuco of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, with habitual absenteeism and gross ignorance of the law. 1
The complaint alleged that there were over 100 cases which were pending before the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon as a result of habitual absenteeism of the Municipal Judge; and that some of these cases had been pending for more than five (5) years because the scheduled hearing thereof had been postponed several times in view of the failure of the respondent judge to attend said hearings.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
The respondent judge was likewise charged with gross ignorance of the law in that (1) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 on the mere affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss filed by the complainant therein without the knowledge and intervention of the fiscal; (2) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat on the ground that there is no such crime because the threat was made in the absence of the person threatened; (3) he assumed jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. A-001 which was triable by the Military Tribunal; and (4) he prohibited the Station Commander of Aguilar, Pangasinan to administer oaths.
In his comment dated May 21, 1979, 2 the respondent judge alleged that he had never been absent from his office except on those days when he had to attend seminars and other official functions, and that most of the cases which were pending in the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon were criminal cases involving non-payment of the Masagana loans wherein many of the accused were at-large.
As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the respondent judge explained that (1) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 only on the basis of the affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss filed by the complainant therein because no fiscal had entered his appearance in said case; (2) Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat was dismissed by him for the reason that the complainant therein, Patricio Daño, Sr. was not present in his house when the alleged grave threat was made by the accused; (3) he conducted the first stage of the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. A-001 for violation of General Order No. 6 (carrying of firearms outside the residence), but it was not his intention to assume jurisdiction over said case because he knew that the same was triable before the Military Tribunal and that he could not conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation because the accused was not apprehended, hence no report was submitted to the Secretary of National Defense; and (4) he did not prohibit the Station Commander of Aguilar, Pangasinan to administer oaths as in fact the complaint in Criminal Case No. A-001 and the affidavits attached thereto were subscribed and sworn to before the said Station Commander.
In a memorandum dated July 29, 1981, Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza directed Atty. Romanito Amatong, a lawyer in this Court, to examine and audit the case records and docket of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan.
After making a physical inventory of all cases pending in the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Atty. Romanito Amatong submitted a memorandum dated August 13, 1981, 3 wherein he reported that as of the date of inspection, there were only 179 criminal cases, 11 civil cases and 1 special proceeding, or a total of 191 pending cases in the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan. Atty. Amatong concluded that Judge Zamuco had not been lagging behind in the disposal of cases contrary to complainant’s allegations.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Amatong reported that: (1) the respondent judge dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 for slander by deed on the basis of the affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss filed by the complainant, Perlita Fajardo, inasmuch as no fiscal had entered his appearance in this case in accordance with the ruling in People v. Beriales, 76 SCRA 42; (2) the respondent judge dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 on the ground that the complainant, Patricio Daño, was not present in his house when the alleged crime of grave threat was committed; (3) the respondent judge assumed jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. A-001 which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal, only for the purpose of conducting the preliminary investigation; and (4) the respondent judge did not prohibit the Station Commander of Aguilar from administering oaths.
From the facts of record, it cannot be said that the respondent had a clogged docket by reason of his absences. Most of the criminal cases pending had been archived because the persons charged of non-payment of the Masagana loans could not be arrested inasmuch as their whereabouts were not known.
No fiscal entered his appearance in Criminal Case No. 1848 of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon. Hence, the respondent judge could dismiss the said case on the basis of the affidavit of desistance and the motion to dismiss of the complainant.
Municipal Courts had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of violations of the law on firearms and explosives provided that the Municipal Judge submitted a report to the Secretary of National Defense through the Provincial Commander outside the Greater Manila area. The accused was not apprehended, hence, the respondent judge could not conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation and no report to the Secretary of National Defense was submitted.
It is a fact that the respondent judge accepted the affidavits attached to the complaint in Criminal Case No. A-001, all subscribed and sworn to before the Station Commander of the Aguilar Integrated National Police.
The respondent judge, however, committed an error when he dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat on the ground that the complainant was not present in his house at the time the accused shouted that he would kill the complainant. The crime of threat may be committed by indirect challenge to fight even if the complainant was absent when the threat was made. There is, however, no showing that the respondent judge dismissed the case for grave threat with a deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. Under the established facts of the case, the respondent judge should be reprimanded.chanrobles law library : red
However, the respondent, Judge Anastacio Zamuco, had reached the retirement age of 70 years on April 27, 1981.
WHEREFORE, the respondent judge, Hon. Anastacio Zamuco, formerly of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, is found guilty of erroneously dismissing Criminal Case No. 2256 of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, for grave threat and is hereby reprimanded.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Plana, J., took no part.
The complaint alleged that there were over 100 cases which were pending before the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon as a result of habitual absenteeism of the Municipal Judge; and that some of these cases had been pending for more than five (5) years because the scheduled hearing thereof had been postponed several times in view of the failure of the respondent judge to attend said hearings.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
The respondent judge was likewise charged with gross ignorance of the law in that (1) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 on the mere affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss filed by the complainant therein without the knowledge and intervention of the fiscal; (2) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat on the ground that there is no such crime because the threat was made in the absence of the person threatened; (3) he assumed jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. A-001 which was triable by the Military Tribunal; and (4) he prohibited the Station Commander of Aguilar, Pangasinan to administer oaths.
In his comment dated May 21, 1979, 2 the respondent judge alleged that he had never been absent from his office except on those days when he had to attend seminars and other official functions, and that most of the cases which were pending in the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon were criminal cases involving non-payment of the Masagana loans wherein many of the accused were at-large.
As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the respondent judge explained that (1) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 only on the basis of the affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss filed by the complainant therein because no fiscal had entered his appearance in said case; (2) Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat was dismissed by him for the reason that the complainant therein, Patricio Daño, Sr. was not present in his house when the alleged grave threat was made by the accused; (3) he conducted the first stage of the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. A-001 for violation of General Order No. 6 (carrying of firearms outside the residence), but it was not his intention to assume jurisdiction over said case because he knew that the same was triable before the Military Tribunal and that he could not conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation because the accused was not apprehended, hence no report was submitted to the Secretary of National Defense; and (4) he did not prohibit the Station Commander of Aguilar, Pangasinan to administer oaths as in fact the complaint in Criminal Case No. A-001 and the affidavits attached thereto were subscribed and sworn to before the said Station Commander.
In a memorandum dated July 29, 1981, Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza directed Atty. Romanito Amatong, a lawyer in this Court, to examine and audit the case records and docket of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan.
After making a physical inventory of all cases pending in the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Atty. Romanito Amatong submitted a memorandum dated August 13, 1981, 3 wherein he reported that as of the date of inspection, there were only 179 criminal cases, 11 civil cases and 1 special proceeding, or a total of 191 pending cases in the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan. Atty. Amatong concluded that Judge Zamuco had not been lagging behind in the disposal of cases contrary to complainant’s allegations.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Amatong reported that: (1) the respondent judge dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 for slander by deed on the basis of the affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss filed by the complainant, Perlita Fajardo, inasmuch as no fiscal had entered his appearance in this case in accordance with the ruling in People v. Beriales, 76 SCRA 42; (2) the respondent judge dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 on the ground that the complainant, Patricio Daño, was not present in his house when the alleged crime of grave threat was committed; (3) the respondent judge assumed jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. A-001 which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal, only for the purpose of conducting the preliminary investigation; and (4) the respondent judge did not prohibit the Station Commander of Aguilar from administering oaths.
From the facts of record, it cannot be said that the respondent had a clogged docket by reason of his absences. Most of the criminal cases pending had been archived because the persons charged of non-payment of the Masagana loans could not be arrested inasmuch as their whereabouts were not known.
No fiscal entered his appearance in Criminal Case No. 1848 of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon. Hence, the respondent judge could dismiss the said case on the basis of the affidavit of desistance and the motion to dismiss of the complainant.
Municipal Courts had the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of violations of the law on firearms and explosives provided that the Municipal Judge submitted a report to the Secretary of National Defense through the Provincial Commander outside the Greater Manila area. The accused was not apprehended, hence, the respondent judge could not conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation and no report to the Secretary of National Defense was submitted.
It is a fact that the respondent judge accepted the affidavits attached to the complaint in Criminal Case No. A-001, all subscribed and sworn to before the Station Commander of the Aguilar Integrated National Police.
The respondent judge, however, committed an error when he dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat on the ground that the complainant was not present in his house at the time the accused shouted that he would kill the complainant. The crime of threat may be committed by indirect challenge to fight even if the complainant was absent when the threat was made. There is, however, no showing that the respondent judge dismissed the case for grave threat with a deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. Under the established facts of the case, the respondent judge should be reprimanded.chanrobles law library : red
However, the respondent, Judge Anastacio Zamuco, had reached the retirement age of 70 years on April 27, 1981.
WHEREFORE, the respondent judge, Hon. Anastacio Zamuco, formerly of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, is found guilty of erroneously dismissing Criminal Case No. 2256 of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, for grave threat and is hereby reprimanded.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Plana, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Rollo, pp. 8-13.
2. Rollo, pp. 21-26.
3. Rollo, pp. 37-45.
