ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISON
[
A.M. MTJ-95-1051.
Exec. Judge EMERITO M. AGCAOILI, Complainant, vs. Judge BRICCIO A. AQUINO, Respondent.
.D E C I S I O N
TORRES, JR., J.:
In his letter dated February 9, 1995, Emerito M. Agcaoili, Regional Trial Court Executive Judge of Aparri, Cagayan, charged Briccio B. Aquino, Judge of Municipal Trial Court of Lal-lo, Cagayan, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court, Gattaran, Cagayan, with serious neglect of duty and/or gross ignorance of the law and insubordination for the latters failure to file the required explanation to the October 11, 1994 directive of Judge Agcaoili relative to Criminal Case Nos. 3246 and 3247 both entitled "People vs. Cortez".1cräläwvirtualibräry
On
"1. The criminal complaint
(p. 1, record) was filed and received on
2. Preliminary
examination (pages 14 to 17) was conducted on
3. A warrant of arrest was ordered issued on the same day (p. 18, record);
4. A warrant of arrest
dated
5. At the back of the warrant of arrest (p. 9, record) appears the endorsement of the process server as follows:
This warrant of arrest was served so many times but the accused Pascual Cortez was not arrested because he transfer already in Alcala, Cagayan with correct address unknown.
Gattarran, Cagayan, this 20th day of January 1994.
6. On
7. On
8. On
On
In compliance with this Courts resolution dated
We agree with the observation of Deputy Court Administrator that the respondent judge failed to comply with Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which requires the investigating judge to transmit to the provincial or city fiscal the records of the case within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. The complaint was filed before the respondent judge for the purpose of preliminary investigation and it was his duty to transmit the records to the fiscal after the termination of the investigation. There was no need to order the case archived when the accused could not be served a copy of the complaint. Section 1(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of court provides that if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed within the ten day period, the investigating officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant. It is evident that the respondent judge did not follow the regular rules of procedure.
Respondent judge was given opportunity to explain why it took him fifteen months from the filing of the complaint to the transmittal of the records. For no reason at all, he chose not to answer the order of the complainant judge who was his immediate superior. This act of respondent judge cannot be sanctioned by this Court.
This is a good time as any to remind judges, as they are expected to show more than a cursory acquaintance with the elementary rules governing procedure x x x and well-settled authoritative doctrines. Courts exist to promote justice and thus to serve public interest. Their administration should be speedy and careful. Every judge should at all times be alert in his rulings and in the conduct of the business of the Court, so far as he can, to make it useful to litigants and to the community.5cräläwvirtualibräry
Considering that the respondent judge had not followed the
regular procedure provided for by law and his apparent ignorance thereof, We
hereby impose on him a FINE of P5,000.00 with a WARNING that the
repetition of the same act will de dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
[1 Rollo, p. 28.
[2 Rollo, p. 27.
[3 Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[4 Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[5 Daplas v. Arquiza, 99 SCRA 141.