EN BANC
ROLANDO
GUYUD,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1469
January 13, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE
RENATO P.
PINE,MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT,
ECHAGUE, ISABELA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA,
J.,
This is a complaint against
Judge Renato P. Pine of the Municipal Trial Court of Echague, Isabela
for
misconduct due to gross ignorance of the law.
Complainant Rolando
Guyud, together with eight other accused, all residents of Barangay
Gumbaoan,
Echague, Isabela, were charged with libel[1]by
a certain Jeffrey Iloreta, also a resident of Barangay Gumbaoan,
Echague,
Isabela. The criminal complaint[2]
against complainant and the other accused alleged:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about July
2, 2001 at Barangay Gumbaoan, Echague, Isabela and within the
preliminary
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused conspired and
confederated
[and] made certification as barangay officials of this barangay, did
then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously wrote "THAT
UNDERSIGNED
IS NOT A LAW ABIDING MEMBER OF THIS BARANGAY AND [HAS] MANY BAD RECORDS
AND [IS] FACING PENDING CASES IN COURT" and which words tend to cause
dishonor,
discredit or contempt over the person of the undersigned and his family
to the damage and prejudice of the same.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Echague, Isabela, July
12, 2001.
(original signed)
JEFFREY ILORETA
Complainant
On August 14, 2001,
Atty. Marcelino J. Alzate, Branch Clerk of Court of MTC of Echague,
issued
a subpoena[3]
requiring complainant and his co-accused to appear before the court on
September 5, 2001, at 8:30 in the morning, for preliminary
investigation.
On August 28, 2001, the accused moved for the dismissal of the case on
the ground that in cases of libel, except for the Office of the
Provincial
Prosecutor, only a municipal trial court judge in the capital town of
the
province can conduct a preliminary investigation. Since Echague is not
the capital town of Isabela, respondent had no authority to conduct a
preliminary
investigation in this case.[4]
Respondent denied the
accused’s motion and, on September 5, 2001, proceeded with the
preliminary
investigation. On the same day, he issued a warrant for their arrest,
fixing
the bail bond of each at P8,000.00.[5]
The accused, including herein complainant, were arrested while they
were
attending the hearing of a case in court. The following day, September
6, 2001, they filed a motion for the reduction of their bail to
P4,000.00,
which respondent granted on the same day. After posting their bail bond
in the reduced amount, the accused were ordered released. In his
affidavit
dated September 12, 2001, complainant alleged that he suffered anxiety
and was deeply prejudiced because of his arrest.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 19, 2001,
respondent issued an order recalling the warrant of arrest he had
issued
and remanded the records of the case to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor
for the holding of a preliminary investigation. In his order,
respondent
stated:[6]
The accused stand charged
of the crime of Libel by means of writings defined and penalized under
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code which carries a penalty of
prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, hence within the
jurisdiction
of first level courts pursuant to [B.P. Blg.] 129, as amended.cralaw:red
Moreover, pursuant to
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code on General Provisions relative to
the crime of Libel, jurisdiction to try Libel cases rests with the
Regional
Trial Court and the preliminary investigation to be conducted by the
Provincial
or City Fiscal of the province or city, or by the Municipal Court of
the
City or Capital of the Province where such action may be instituted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, let the Records of the case be forwarded to the Office of
the
Provincial Prosecutor for the conduct of the Preliminary Investigation.cralaw:red
The Warrant Of Arrest
earlier issued by this Court and the bailbonds posted by all of the
accused
are hereby set aside and/or cancelled having been issued/ordered beyond
the Court’s jurisdiction.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Echague, Isabela, September
19, 2001.
(original signed)
RENATO P. PINE
Acting Judge
In his comment[7]
on the complaint, respondent admitted the foregoing facts. He explains
that he is saddled with work and, therefore, is liable to make
mistakes.
He claims that as soon as he realized his error, he lost no time to
correct
it by remanding the case to the Prosecutor’s Office, which has
jurisdiction
to conduct preliminary investigations in libel cases, and ordering the
release of the accused. His comment reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I humbly admit having
conducted a preliminary examination in Criminal Case No. 5807 entitled
"People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Guyud, et al." for "Libel By
Means
of Writings Or Similar Means" for the purpose of determining a probable
cause for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest considering that the
penalty
for the crime is only prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods
hence, within the jurisdiction of first level courts pursuant to [B.P.
Blg.] 129, as amended. The corresponding Warrant of Arrest was
subsequently
issued on September 5, 2001. The following day, September 6, 2001, five
(5) of the [nine (9)] accused, namely: Rolando Guyud, Leon Saet [Jr.],
Gil Rivera, Bonifacio Anchola, Sr. and Efren Morada came to Court and
filed
a Motion To Reduce bail bond by virtue of which the Court lowered the
bail
bond from P8,000.00 to P4,000.00 On that same day, the aforenamed
accused
filed their bail bond[s] and were ordered released. On September 19,
2001,
after the Court realized having acted beyond its jurisdiction, an Order
was issued setting aside the Warrant of Arrest and canceling the bail
bonds
posted by the accused, copy of the said Order is hereto attached as
Annex
"A." The Court then forwarded the Records of the Case to the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor for the conduct of the Preliminary
Investigation
pursuant to Art. 360 of the RPC, as amended. Meanwhile, the bailbonds
of
the accused were correspondingly returned to each of them by the Clerk
of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Your Honor, I only have
Wednesdays and Thursdays of every week to attend to cases before the
MTC
of Echague, Isabela. I conduct preliminary examinations/investigations
in the morning of every Wednesdays and make Resolutions and/or
Decisions
in the afternoon. I hear Civil Cases in the morning of every Thursdays
and hear Criminal Cases in the afternoon. Considering the number of
cases
(which were already considerably reduced) pending with this Court which
I have to attend to, plus the cases pending before the MCTC of
Jones-San
Agustin and the MCTC of Ramon-San Isidro which I also handle, not to
mention
four (4) special cases assigned to me before the MTC of Cordon,
Isabela.
I am vulnerable to committing lapses and/or mistakes. At any rate, the
mistake has already been corrected with the issuance of the Order dated
September 19, 2001, Annex "A" hereof. Practically, the complaint has
become
moot and academic and the complainant was not damaged because he was
ordered
released on the same day he submitted himself to the Court and posted
his
reduced bail which was later returned to him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Your Honor, I humbly
beg for leniency and understanding even as I promise to be more
vigilant
next time.cralaw:red
Very respectfully yours,
(original signed)
RENATO P. PINE
Acting Judge
In its report, dated
August 9, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends
that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and
that
respondent judge be fined in the amount of five thousand (P5,000.00)
pesos
for gross ignorance of the law for conducting a preliminary
investigation
on the case. Citing the legal maxim "ignorance of the law excuses no
one,"
the OCA rejects respondent’s explanation and notes that the fact that
the
accused moved to dismiss the case should have put him on guard that the
said case was erroneously filed in his sala.cralaw:red
The recommendation is
well taken.cralaw:red
Art. 360 of the Revised
Penal Code indeed provides that preliminary investigations of libel
cases
shall be conducted by the provincial or city prosecutor of the province
or city or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the
province
in which the criminal action may be filed. In this case, the MTC of
Echague,
over which respondent presides, is not a municipal trial court of the
city
or of the capital of the province and, therefore, has no jurisdiction
to
conduct the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. 5807. This
is
a matter which respondent, as presiding judge, ought to know. In Dumo
v.
Perez,[8]
this Court said that although judges cannot be held to account or
answer
criminally, civilly or administratively for every erroneous judgment or
decision rendered by him in good faith, it is imperative that they
should
have basic knowledge of the law. The jurisdiction of the court over
which
one presides is such basic matter. To be able to render justice and to
maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges must keep
abreast
of the laws and jurisprudence. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Judicial
Conduct provides that judges must be the embodiment of competence,
integrity
and independence. Obviously, they cannot live up to this expectation if
they act in a case without jurisdiction through ignorance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Cacayoren v. Suller,[9]
the respondent judge was fined P3,000.00 in each case filed against him
for misapplying the rulings of the Court by taking cognizance of an
action
for damages based on malicious prosecution even if there was as yet no
acquittal nor final dismissal rendered by the court in the criminal
cases.
In Ubando-Paras v. Fernandez,[10]
the respondent judge was fined P5,000.00 for ordering the release of an
accused in a criminal case even though he had paid the bail bond merely
by means of a check and did not post a cash bond. In Bajet v. Areola,[11]
the respondent judge issued an order authorizing demolition of the
improvements
on the subject property without first conducting a hearing. He was
found
guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ordered to pay a fine of
P3,000.00.cralaw:red
In other cases, the
Court considered the absence of bad faith, or the willful intention to
prejudice a party litigant, or any showing that an erring judge was
impelled
by some ulterior ends or ill motives and, accordingly, mitigated the
imposable
penalty. In Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr.,[12]
serious illness justified the inability of the respondent judge to
decide
before his retirement from the service seven (7) criminal cases and
three
(3) civil cases within the 90-day reglementary period. The OCA
recommended
a fine of P5,000.00 to be imposed on the respondent but the Court
lowered
it to P2,000.00. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Quizon,[13]
the Court considered the attenuating circumstances of the respondent
judge’s
serious illness and his heavy caseload and lowered OCA’s recommended
fine
of P20,000.00 to P5,000.00. In Chavez v. Escañan,[14]
respondent judge was fined P5,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law for
issuing orders impleading the owners of the motor vehicle as the
accused
in a criminal case for reckless imprudence instituted as a result of a
vehicular accident involving the said vehicle.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
respondent’s liability is somewhat mitigated by his candor in admitting
his mistake and promptly correcting it. Apparently, he did not
appreciate
the point of law raised when his authority to conduct the preliminary
investigation
in the libel case was first questioned. But, as soon as he realized his
mistake, he lost no time in declaring himself without jurisdiction to
continue
acting in the case and immediately ordered the release of complainant
and
his co-accused. A fine of P5,000.00, as recommended by the Office of
the
Court Administrator, would thus appear to be an appropriate sanction to
impose on respondent.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Renato P. Pine of the Municipal Trial Court of Echague, Isabela,
is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and is hereby ordered to
pay a FINE in the amount of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) with
ADMONITION
to be more assiduous in the study of cases and the applicable statute
and
jurisprudence.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Criminal Case No. 5807, entitled People of the Philippines v. Rolando
Guyud,
Leon Saet, Jr., Bonifacio Anchola, Sr., Tiburcio Anchola, Herminio
Baracao,
Gil Rivera, Noli Furuc, Florencio Iloreta and Efren Morada.
[2]
Annex A of complainant’s Affidavit; Rollo, p. 3.
[3]
Rollo, p. 7.
[4]
Annex B of complainant’s Affidavit; Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[5]
Rollo, p. 6.
[6]
Annex A of respondent’s Comment; Rollo, p. 11.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[8]
322 SCRA 545 (2000).
[9]
344 SCRA 159 (2000).
[10]
353 SCRA 11 (2001).
[11]
355 SCRA 69 (2001).
[12]
306 SCRA 50 (1999).
[13]
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1636, February 13, 2002.
[14]
343 SCRA 170 (2000).
|