THIRD DIVISION
EVELIO
PEÑA,
JEROLD PEÑA,AUGUSTO
BARBOSA
AND ALVIN PILAPIL,
Complainants,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-02-1451
May 30, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE ORLANDO A.
MARTIZANO, MCTC,SAN
JOSE-PRESENTACION,
CAMARINES SUR,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
When the facts stated in
the complaint plainly described an election offense, the respondent
should
have known that he had no jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary
investigation
thereon. For having ignored the clear rule that only the
Commission
on Elections (Comelec) had the exclusive power to preliminarily
investigate
and to prosecute election offenses, he has opened himself to
administrative
sanction. His liability is compounded by his subsequent actions
showing
plain violations of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and elementary due
process. The Case and the
Facts
This administrative
case arises from a Complaint[1]
filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on August 24,
2001
by Evelio Peña, Jerold Peña, Augusto Barbosa and Alvin
Pilapil.
In the Complaint, Judge Orlando A. Martizano of the Municipal Circuit
Trial
Court (MCTC) of San Jose-Presentacion, Camarines Sur, was charged with
grave abuse of authority, political harassment, evident partiality,
ignorance
of the law and election offenses.chanrobles virtual law library
The material averments
in the Complaint are summarized by the OCA as follows:
"Complainants
aver that on May 5, 2001, a Saturday, they were criminally charged in
respondent’s
court in the [I]nformation which in part reads:
‘x
x x the accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and
feloniously falsify the Official Ballots for the May 11, 1998 Local and
National Elections for the Municipal[ity] of San Jose, Camarines Sur,
by
switching the official ballots cast in favor of the complainant with
faked
and simulated ballots that later nullified the valid ballots cast in
favor
of the complainant x x x.’
"Respondent Judge
went
to the MCTC, San Jose, Camarines Sur purposely to receive, admit and
act
on [a] [C]omplaint entitled ‘People vs. Evelio Peña, et. al.,’
and
docketed the same as Criminal Case No. 1645. The [C]omplaint was
erroneously designated as ‘Falsification of Public Documents’ allegedly
in violation of Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised
Penal
Code, although nothing in said penal provisions appear to have been
violated.
"Respondent should
not
have taken cognizance of the case as the body of the [C]omplaint shows
that the same is election related. Under the Comelec Rules of
Procedure,
it is the Commission on Election that has the exclusive authority to
prosecute
offenses found to be election-related. [Complainants] called the
attention of respondent Judge by filing a Motion for Inhibition and
refer[ed]
the case to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, but the motion was not
acted upon. Respondent Judge, in patent abuse of authority,
admitted
the [C]omplaint and issued the warrants of arrest despite knowledge
that
under the offense charged, no probable cause exists.
"Respondent is
ignorant
of the law because he assumed jurisdiction over the case which is
election-related.
As a rule, it is the allegations contained in the body of the
[C]omplaint
that controls not the designation of the offense.chanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"x
x x Respondent should also be held liable for
election
offenses for issuing the warrant of arrest. As candidates, their
reputation was besmirched and they were forced to refrain for a period
from campaigning. This action by respondent judge who is a public
officer is either direct or indirect intervention in an election
campaign,
or involves directly or indirectly partisan political activity."[2]
In his comment[3]
dated October 9, 2001, respondent avers that there was nothing
irregular
about working on a Saturday. He explains that aside from his
regular
appointment as Presiding Judge of Tigaon-Sangay, he was also the
designated
judge of four other municipal trial court (MTC) branches in Camarines
Sur;
namely, those in Lagonoy, Goa, Caramoan and San
Jose-Presentacion.
He swears that his presence at the San Jose-Presentacion sala was not
prearranged
by him and Mayor Gil P. Pacamarra, the complainant in Criminal Case No.
1645. He attests that he was indeed scheduled to work in that
branch
on that particular Saturday when the charge against complainants was
filed.cralaw:red
Respondent claims that
he did not commit any grave abuse of authority when he conducted the
preliminary
investigation in Criminal Case No. 1645. He maintains that he was
competent to do so, because the facts alleged in the Complaint pointed
to falsification. According to him, the "switching (of ballots)
with
fake and simulated (ones)" constituted the offense of "falsification"
as
defined in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. He reasons that
"[t]he fact that the objects switched were official ballots did not
make
the act of switching no longer punishable by the Revised Penal Code."chanrobles virtual law library
Moreover, he castigates
complainants for belatedly raising the issue that the case was
election-related
and should have been filed with the provincial prosecutor’s office for
preliminary investigation. According to him, he had already
concluded
his investigation on May 9, 2001, while they raised the matter only on
May 11, 2001.cralaw:red
Respondent likewise
asserts that the warrants of arrest against complainants were regularly
issued. Mayor Pacamarra filed on May 11, 2001 an Urgent Motion
for
the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest, because he and his family were
receiving
death threats. After due deliberation, respondent granted the
Motion
and issued the corresponding arrest warrants.cralaw:red
Respondent relates that
on May 30, 2001, complainants filed a Motion to Quash on the ground
that
he had no authority to conduct the preliminary investigation in
Criminal
Case No. 1645, because the offense charged therein was an election
offense.
He then ordered the prosecution to file its comment, but it failed to
do
so. Thereafter, he issued an Order dismissing the case.cralaw:red
Finally, he claims that
all the proceedings relative to Criminal Case No. 1645, from the time
of
its filing until its dismissal, were in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
He stresses that had he desisted from giving due course to the case, he
would have been reneging on his duties.cralaw:red
Report and Recommendation
of the OCA
In its May 22, 2002
Report,[4]
the OCA found respondent guilty of ignorance of the law when he gave
due
course to Criminal Case No. 1645. It opined that "[w]hile
official
ballots are considered public documents, falsification of the same is
not
punishable under the penal code. Falsification of any election
form
or document, official ballots or any other document used in the
election
is an election offense punishable under the Omnibus Election Code which
only the C[omelec], through its authorized legal officer, [has] the
power
to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute."[5]
The OCA also noted that respondent had not been deputized by the
Comelec,
which was authorized to deputize other officials of the government to
prosecute
election offenses.chanrobles virtual law library
The OCA likewise found
that respondent erred in issuing the warrants of arrest against
complainants
without first resolving the Urgent Manifestation with Plea for
Inhibition
as well as the Supplemental Argument filed by their counsel.
These
pleadings questioned his authority to give due course to the criminal
case.
The OCA observed that, without first waiting for the comment of the
Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor, respondent had proceeded to issue the
arrest
warrants and subsequently suspended the proceedings.cralaw:red
The OCA also noted that
"if respondent was of the honest belief that the offense charged
in [Criminal Case No. 1645] was not election-related, he should have
first
resolved the pending incident and proceeded with the preliminary
investigation
pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, by giving
[complainants]
the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and other controverting
evidence.
x x x. By suspending the
proceedings
after the warrants of arrest were issued, respondent had denied
[complainants]
their right to due process. Wittingly or unwittingly, he allowed
himself to be an instrument to harass the political opponents of the
complainant[s]."[6]
The OCA recommended
that respondent be fined P10,000 with a warning that a repetition of
the
same or a similar offense be dealt with more severely.
This Court’s
Ruling
We agree with the findings
of the OCA, but modify the penalty in accordance with Rule 140 of the
Rules
of Court.cralaw:red
Respondent’s Administrative
Liability
Judges are expected
to strive for excellence in the performance of their duties. As
exemplars
of law and justice, they are mandated to embody competence, integrity
and
independence.[7]
Verily, they owe it to the public to know the very laws they are
supposed
to apply to controversies. They are called upon to exhibit more
than
a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural laws.[8]
Anything less would constitute gross ignorance of the law.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
In the present case,
respondent exceeded his authority when he persisted in giving due
course
to Criminal Case No. 1645 despite the objection of complainants.
Elementary
is the rule that the real nature of a criminal charge cannot be
determined
from the title of the complaint; the designation of the offense
charged;
or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, which are
mere
conclusions of law. What is controlling is the description of the
crime or the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.[10]
In this case, a perusal
of the body of the Complaint reveals that the charge was "switching of
official ballots with simulated ballots." The facts in the Complaint
clearly
describe an election-related incident. Thus, respondent should
have
known that the crime charged was an election offense. However,
instead
of reviewing the matter in accordance with election laws, he treated it
as an ordinary act of falsification of a public document and,
thereafter,
conducted a preliminary investigation. Clearly, he ignored the
rule
that the Comelec, through its authorized legal officers, has the
exclusive
power to conduct preliminary investigations of all election offenses
and
to prosecute them.[11]
Moreover, contrary to
the claims of respondent, his actions were not in accordance with the
Rules
on Criminal Procedure. Assuming that he had the authority to
conduct
the preliminary investigation, then he should have given complainants
the
opportunity to submit their counter-affidavits and any evidence to
support
their defense.[12]
Instead, he deprived them of this right. Further, he avers that
he
finished his investigation on May 9, 2001. However, there was no
mention of his transmittal of the records of the case to the provincial
prosecutor for appropriate review.cralaw:red
Respondent blames complainants
for belatedly raising the issue that the Comelec has the exclusive
authority
to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation. We reject
this
flimsy excuse. As a judge, he is mandated in every case to
diligently
endeavor to ascertain the facts and the applicable law.[13]
He cannot hide his negligence or incompetence by shifting the blame to
complainants.cralaw:red
Likewise, respondent
erred in hastily issuing the warrants of arrest against
complainants.
Within the reglementary period, the latter raised the issue of whether
he had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation.
Respondent,
however, granted the warrants for their arrest without first resolving
the pending issue. Moreover, we find it irregular that even
without
determining the veracity of their claim, he ordered their arrest on the
same day the Motion therefor was filed. He simply relied on the
information
relayed to him by Mayor Pacamarra without conducting the necessary
examination
required by Sections 4[14]
and 6[15]
of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
We reiterate that judges
are duty-bound to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional
competence
at all times. Their role in the administration of justice
requires
a continuous study of the law and jurisprudence, lest public confidence
in the judiciary be eroded by incompetence and irresponsible conduct.[16]
Gross ignorance of the
law constitutes a serious charge under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the
Rules
of Court. A finding of guilt results in any of the following: (a)
dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of one’s
benefits,
and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public
office
including government-owned or controlled corporations; (b) suspension
from
office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not
exceeding
six months; or (c) a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding
P40,000.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, Judge Orlando
A. Martizano is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law. He is
ORDERED to pay a FINE of P25,000, with a warning that a repetition of
the
same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), and
Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Corona, JJ., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2]
OCA Report, pp. 1-3; rollo, pp. 64-66.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 31-42.
[4]
Signed by Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez and recommended for
approval by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr.
[5]
OCA Report, p. 7; rollo, p. 70.
[6]
Id., pp. 8-9 & 71-72.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
[8]
Tabao v. Barataman, AM No. MTJ-01-1384, April 11, 2002.
[9]
Creer v. Fabillar, 337 SCRA 632, August 14, 2000; Pacris v.
Pagalilauan,
337 SCRA 638, August 14, 2000.
[10]
People v. Barrientos, 285 SCRA 221, January 28, 1998; People v. Diaz,
320
SCRA 168, December 8, 1999; People v. Taño, 331 SCRA 449, May 5,
2000; People v. Banihit, 339 SCRA 86, August 25, 2000.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
§265 of the Omnibus Election Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
§3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Rule 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
"SEC. 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.
-
If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for
trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall
certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the
record,
an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that
the
accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted
against
him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting
evidence.
Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint.chanrobles virtual law library
"Within
five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the
case
to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to
the
Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall act on
the
resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall
immediately
inform the parties of such action.
"No
complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating
prosecutor without the prior authority or approval of the provincial or
city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his
deputy.chanrobles virtual law library
"Where
the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the complaint
but his recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or city
prosecutor
or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy on the ground
that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the
information
against the respondent, or direct another assistant prosecutor or state
prosecutor to do so without conducting another preliminary
investigation.chanrobles virtual law library
"If
upon petition by a proper party under such Rules as the Department of
Justice
may prescribe or motu propio, the Secretary of Justice reverses or
modifies
the resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor,
he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the
corresponding
information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to
dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with
notice
to the parties. The same Rule shall apply in preliminary
investigations
conducted by the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman."
[15]
"SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. -chanrobles virtual law library
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtual law library
"(b)
By the Municipal Trial Court. - When required pursuant to
the
second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary
investigation
of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or
Municipal
Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by either the judge or the
prosecutor.
When conducted by the prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of a
warrant
of arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this
section.
When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall
follow
the procedure provided in section 3 of this Rule. If his findings
and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor,
or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is
filed, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without
waiting
for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant
of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of
the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions
and
answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of
placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate
the ends of justice."
[16]
Belga v. Buban, 331 SCRA 531, May 9, 2000.
chan
robles virtual law library |