ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI
No. 04-1624-MTJ.
BRION vs. RUIZ
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your
information, is a resolution of this Court
dated
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1624-MTJ (Renato L. Brion vs. Judge Conrado A. Ruiz, Acting Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Amulung, Iguig, Cagayan.)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) dated
SUBJECT MATTER: OCA IPI No. 04-1624-MTJ. Renato L. Brion vs. Judge Conrado A. Ruiz, Acting Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Amulung, Cagayan.
REASON FOR AGENDA: Received by this Office were the following:
A. Verified-Complaint dated
Complainant alleges that the administrative charge arose from the issuance of warrant for his arrest without respondent having conducted the necessary preliminary investigation.
Complainant narrates that a criminal complaint for grave threats
was filed against him in the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial [Court] on P12,000.00.
Complainant avers that he never received a notice of any preliminary investigation to be conducted by respondent judge and neither was a complaint served with a notification for him to submit his counter-affidavit.
Upon receiving reliable information on February 12, 2004 of the filing of the case and the issuance of the warrant for his arrest, complainant immediately surrendered to the Executive Judge of RTC, Tuguegarao City, the next day and posted bail for his temporary liberty. It is further alleged that the intended arrest caused much worry to complainant and his family. Their agony was amplified when the media feasted on the news that complainant would be apprehended which placed his reputation and integrity under a cloud of suspicion.
B. COMMENT dated
Respondent admits having conducted the preliminary examination upon
the witnesses for the prosecution in the form of searching questions and answer
in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of Section 9, Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of issuing the warrant of
arrest. This is supported by the
transcript of the proceedings he conducted on
Respondent, however, denies the allegation that he did not conduct
the required preliminary investigation. It is pointed out that the copy of the
complaint and the supporting affidavits thereof were furnished the accused as
evidenced by a subpoena sent to the accused which was received on February 17,
2004. Respondent avers that complainant even filed a motion for an extension of
time signed by his counsel, Atty. Placido M. Sabban for him to file his counter-affidavit. This is
evidenced by a Court Order dated
Respondent alleges that he conducted the required preliminary
investigation in accordance with the Rules of Court, as shown by his Resolution
dated
For the purpose of issuing warrant of arrest, respondent issued the
Order dated
EVALUATION: After careful evaluation of the record of the case, the undersigned finds no merit in the charges against respondent judge, warranting the dismissal of the instant complaint.
Complainant cannot claim that respondent judge did not conduct the
required preliminary investigation in the subject criminal case considering
that respondent, through his counsel, even filed a motion for extension of time
to file the required counter-affidavit. In fact, complainant even filed a
counter-affidavit dated
Complainant, in this case, questions the issuance of the warrant of
arrest for his arrest on
"A preliminary investigation is conducted to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime xxx has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It is an executive, not a judicial function. It falls under the authority of the prosecutor who is given, by law, the power to direct and control all criminal actions. However, since there are not enough fiscals and prosecutors to investigate the crimes committed in all the municipalities all over the country, the government was constrained to assign this function to judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Thus, when a municipal judge conducts preliminary investigation, he performs a non-judicial function as an exception to his usual duties. His findings, therefore, are subject to review by the provincial or city prosecutor whose findings, in turn, may be reviewed by the Secretary of Justice in appropriate cases. Hence, the investigating judge, after conducting a preliminary investigation, must perform his ministerial duty to transmit, within ten (10) days, the resolution of the case together with the entire records to the provincial or city prosecutor.
It is true that the determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a judicial function which is beyond the reviewing power of the prosecutor. However, distinction should be made between a preliminary inquiry for the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether or not a person should be held for trial. The first is a judicial function while the second is an executive function. Even if the investigating judge finds no sufficient ground to issue a warrant of arrest, he is still duty-bound to transmit the records to the provincial or city prosecutor. The prosecutor's reviewing power shall affect only his conclusion as to whether or not a criminal complaint or information should be filed against the respondent, but not his conclusion as to the propriety of issuing a warrant of arrest."
While it may be true that respondent judge may have not yet conducted the preliminary investigation when he issued the arrest warrant, such is allowed under the Rules of Court. It is not required that the preliminary investigation be first concluded before the investigating judge can issue a warrant of arrest. In fact, under Section 6, Subparagraph (b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is provided that:
SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
(a) ...
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. - When required pursuant to the second paragraph of section (sic) 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant case against Judge Conrado A. Ruiz be dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court fully agrees with the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
The settled rule is that the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative, for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. [1] 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 [2] 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. [3] cralaw
Furthermore, an administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by an erroneous order or judgment. [4] cralaw
The Court, thus, resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Judge Conrado A. Ruiz for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Castanos v. Esca�o , 251 SCRA 174 (1995).
[2] cralaw Abdula v. Guiani , 326 SCRA 1 (2000).
[3] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
[4] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar , 415 SCRA 377 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
