EN
BANC
MAYOR
SOTERO C. CANTELA,
Complainant,
A. M. No. MTJ-93-749
February 7, 1994
-versus-
JUDGE
RAFAEL S. ALMORADIE,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
Before this
Court is a sworn complaint dated
3 November 1992, filed by Sotero C. Cantela, charging respondent Judge
Rafael S. Almoradie of the Third Municipal Circuit Trail Court of San
Fernando-
Batuan, 5th Judicial Region, San Fernando, Masbate, with "Malpractice
and
Grave Abuse of Authority Amounting to Ignorance of the Law." The charge
is based on the alleged practice of the respondent of archiving
criminal
cases after their preliminary investigation.
Complainant cited
Criminal Case No. 3084 for violation
of R. A. 6425, as amended; Criminal Case No. 3080, for Frustrated
Murder;
Criminal Case No. 3076, for Attempted Rape; Criminal Case No. 3082, for
Murder; Criminal Case No. 3061, for Violation of Section 69 of P. D.
705,
as amended by P. D. 1559; Criminal Case No. 3063, for Violation of P.
D.
533; Criminal Case No. 3003, for Theft of Large Cattle; Criminal Case
No.
3025, for Frustrated Homicide; and Criminal Case No. 3014, for
Homicide,
as among the cases where allegedly, after conducting preliminary
investigations
therein, respondent Judge Almoradie, instead of forwarding the records
of said cases to the Provincial Prosecutor for review, archived the
cases
on the flimsy and suspicious ground that the accused therein could not
be arrested, which is a flagrant violation of Rule 112, Sections 1 and
5, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rules of Court.[1]
In compliance
with the Court's Resolution of 4
February 1993, respondent submitted his Comment on 7 April 1993 wherein
he vehemently denies the charge, claiming that the complaint is
principally
politically motivated. According to respondent, the complainant, who is
the Mayor of the Municipality of Monreal, Masbate, is his former
political
rival. He claims that he [respondent] was once a member of the
Sangguniang
Bayan of Monreal and was close to former President Marcos before he was
appointed to the Judiciary as MCTC Judge of San Fernando-Batuan,
Masbate.
To prove that complainant harbored malice towards him, respondent
attached
a copy of Resolution No. 69 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Monreal
objecting
to his perceived application for the position of MCTC Judge of San
Jacinto-Monreal,
Masbate. Respondent vigorously maintains that the said resolution is
replete
with falsehoods and was instigated by complainant, whose wish is to
prevent
respondent's appointment to the position of MCTC Judge of San
Jacinto-Monreal,
Masbate.cralaw:red
Relative to the
archiving of criminal cases after
their preliminary investigation, respondent admits that he placed the
records
of the subject criminal cases, except Criminal Case No. 3084, in the
files
after the failure of the arresting officer to apprehend the accused. He
justified this practice by maintaining his honest and sincere belief
that
it would be easier to issue an alias warrant of arrest if
these
cases were kept within his jurisdiction. He avers that in his
questioned
orders he always states that the archiving of the cases is without
prejudice
to the subsequent prosecution of the accused as soon as they are
arrested.cralaw:red
In a Resolution
dated 11 May 1993, the Court referred
this case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation,
report
and recommendation. On 29 July 1993, the Office of the Court
Administrator
submitted its report, finding respondent judge guilty of gross
ignorance
of Sections 5 and 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
According to the Office of the Court of Administrator:
As admitted by respondent Judge himself,
even
after the preliminary investigation, he keeps the records on archives (sic)
because it would be easier for him to issue an alias warrant of
arrest if the cases are still within his jurisdiction. Such explanation
of the respondent Judge exhibits not only his ignorance of the new
procedure
under preliminary investigation but also shows his gross incompetence
as
a Judge. Respondent Judge ought to know that under Rule 112, Section 5
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of the
Investigating
Judge within ten [10] days from conclusion of the preliminary
investigation
to transmit, together with his resolution, the records of the case to
the
Provincial Prosecutor's Office for appropriate action. In all the
resolutions
respondent Judge issued on the subject criminal cases, records of the
cases
remained in archive at this sala for six [6] months or more.
We find no merit in respondent Judge's
contention
that it would be easier for him to issue alias warrants of
arrest
if the cases are kept within his jurisdiction and that, in any case, he
states in his orders that the archiving is without prejudice to the
subsequent
prosecution of the accused as soon as he is arrested. Section 5, Rule
112
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure explicitly states that within ten
[10]
days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, an
Investigating
Judge shall transmit to the Provincial or City Prosecutor for
appropriate
action his resolution of the case together with the records thereof.
Respondent
Judge cannot brush aside his duty to transmit to the Provincial
Prosecutor
within said ten [10] day period his resolution as well as the entire
records
of the case upon the handy excuse that it would be easier for him to
issue
an alias warrant of arrest if the case were kept within his
jurisdiction,
because the law does not allow him such discretion or leeway. The
purpose
of the particular provision is to enhance the speedy administration of
justice. Considering that the subject criminal cases involve murder,
rape
and violation of the Dangerous Drug Act, respondent Judge should have
been
prompted by the gravity of the offenses to forward the records of the
cases
within the required 10-day period to the Provincial Prosecutor for
appropriate
action.
Moreover, respondent's pretext that he
did not
intend to keep the cases indefinitely within his jurisdiction because
he
states in his orders that the archiving of the cases is without
prejudice
to the subsequent prosecution of the accused, only proves grave abuse
of
authority on his part which is tantamount to ignorance of the law as he
himself admits in his orders that the court over which he presides has
no jurisdiction over the cases.
In several resolutions of Assistant
Provincial
Prosecutor Danilo V. Ontog, the attention of respondent Judge had been
called to the irregular practice of the latter of archiving criminal
cases.
Even RTC Executive Judge Ricardo Butalid in an article in the
local
newspaper "Panahon" [issue of 19 August 1990] denounced the irregular
practice
of respondent Judge of archiving criminal cases after preliminary
investigation.
Despite all these efforts of Judge Butalid and the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor to point out the wrong procedure being followed by
respondent
Judge, the latter remained unperturbed and continued with his irregular
practice. This, in effect, facilitated the escape of several accused in
the complaints, who have been seen moving freely. Respondent Judge has
not, therefore, been of help in ridding the community of undesirable
elements.
He has contributed, through his ignorance of the law, to the mockery of
the law.
Even as the
pleadings in this case clearly project
the issues involved, since no hearing had been held, this Court in a
Resolution
dated 16 September 1993 required the parties to manifest if they were
willing
to submit this case for decision on the basis of the pleadings. In a
manifestation,
dated 3 November 1993, respondent stated that he is submitting his case
based on the pleadings. The complainant likewise, in a Manifestation
dated
23 November 1993, manifested that he is submitting the case for
decision
on the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties. Accordingly, We are
deciding the case on the basis of the pleadings.
A Judge should be
the embodiment of competence,
integrity, and independence [Rule 1.01, Code of Judicial Conduct] and
should
administer justice impartially and without delay [Rule 1.02, Ibid.].
He should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence;
dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the
required
periods [Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.05, Ibid.]. It has been
unmistakably
shown that respondent Judge is grossly ignorant of the correct criminal
procedure and he has been stubborn in his ignorance because he has not
heeded the advice of an RTC Executive Judge and the Assistant
Provincial
Prosecutor. This tenacious adherence to a wrong procedure makes him
unfit
to discharge his judicial office. As We held in a recent administrative
case:
More than mere ignorance of applicable
laws and
jurisprudence, his intransigence and persistence in error will make
people
lose their faith in him as an administrator of justice. Having lost his
right to be addressed by the respectful appellation of "Honorable
Judge,"
he has likewise lost his right to continue in the judicial service.
[Zuno
vs. Dizon, A. M., No. RTJ-91-752, 23 June 1993].
ACCORDINGLY,
the Court hereby dismisses respondent
Judge from the service with prejudice to appointment to any government
position or public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations,
and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug
and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., took no part.
Nocon, J., is on leave.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnote
[1]
Rule 112, Section 1 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Definition.-
Preliminary
investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of
determining
whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that
a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and
that
the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
[1a]
xxx
xxx
xxx
Section
5 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Duty
of Investigation Judge.
- Within ten [10] days after the conclusion of the preliminary
investigation,
the Investigating Judge shall transmit to the provincial or city
fiscal,
for appropriate action, the resolution of the case, stating briefly the
findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the
entire records of the case, which shall include: [a] the warrant, if
the
arrest is by virtue of a warrant; [b] the affidavits and other
supporting
evidence of the parties; [c] the undertaking or bail of the accused;
[d]
the order of release of the accused and cancellation of his bail bond,
if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.
Should the provincial
or city fiscal disagree with the findings of the investigating judge,
he
shall prevail, but he must explain his action in writing furnishing the
parties with copies of his resolution not later than thirty [30] days
from
receipt of the records from the judge. If the accused is detained, the
fiscal shall order his release. [12a]. |