ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1534-MTJ.
RODRIGUEZ vs. MANREAL
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 8 2004.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1534-MTJ (Reynaldo B. Rodriguez vs. Judge Dante P. Manreal, MCTC, Bogo, Cebu.)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator
dated
REASON FOR AGENDA:
In a VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated
Complainant, the accused in the criminal case, alleges that respondent issued a warrant of arrest against him without a preliminary investigation. This disregarded the requirement in Sec. 6(b), Rule 112, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, that a municipal trial court judge can only issue an arrest warrant when two requisites concur: (1) there is a finding of probable cause; and (2) there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
Complainant claims that the criminal complaint of Lilibeth Weaver mentions that the alleged rape was
committed on
Further, complainant alleges that there was neither a finding of probable cause nor a need to place accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
In his COMMENT dated
Respondent claims that he is convinced that complainant had to be
placed in custody because rape is a capital offense. Respondent explains that a
person facing the prospect of spending long years in jail would surely be
tempted to flee, more so if he has resources to do so, like the complainant. He
may or may not have had plans to flee from justice, but respondent believes
that it is better to err on the side of caution considering that the
complainant resides in Metro Manila, well beyond the reach of MCTC Bogo-San Remigio.
Respondent avers that these considerations were not stated in the Order dated
In a REPLY TO COMMENT/OPPOSITION dated 12 April 2004, complainant avers that in order to correct the injustices he made, respondent passed the blame to his own Clerk of Court and made it appear that it was a mere oversight and error in the handling of case records.
EVALUATION: The complaint should be dismissed. Sec. 6(b), Rule 112, Rules of Court reads:
"x x x 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 witness in the form of searching questions and answers, that probable cause exist and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice."
Respondent conducted an examination in the form of searching
questions and answers. The determination as to whether or not a warrant of
arrest should be issued is an exercise of judicial discretion, thus, judicial
in nature. This Court has consistently ruled that an administrative complaint
is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or
irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available and if subsequent
developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct, there would be no
occasion to proceed against him at all (Santos
vs. Orlino, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1418,
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court with the recommendation that the case be DISMISSED for lack of merit. [1] cralaw
We agree.
As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. [2] cralaw The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. [3] cralaw To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or Interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. [4] cralaw Furthermore, if the complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. [5] cralaw
It must be stressed that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. [6] cralaw This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [7] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Judge Dante P. Manreal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUDICHI
YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 40-42.
[2] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o, 251 SCRA 174 (1995).
[3] cralaw Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000).
[4] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
[5] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Br. 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).
[6] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, 415 SCRA 377 (2003).
[7] cralaw Balsamo v. Suan, 411 SCRA 189 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
