ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 05-1672-MTJ.� July 18, 2005]
RE: TAYLOR vs. GLEYO
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2005.
A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 05-1672-MTJ (Re: Brett Taylor vs. Judge Renato B. Gleyo, MCTC, Norala-Tiboli-Sto. Ni�o, Norala, South Cotabato.)
For consideration is the administrative complaint, dated 20 January 2005, filed by Brett Taylor charging Judge Renato B. Gleyo of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Norala-Tiboli-Sto Ni�o, South Cotabato, with Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Ignorance of the Law relative to Criminal Case No. 4084 entitled, "People of the Philippines vs. Brett Taylor, et al."
Complainant is a member of the Board of Directors of the Tribal Mining Corporation located at Tiboli, South Cotabato, and a holder of a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources denominated as MPSA No. 090-97-XI.
On 16 December 2004, a criminal complaint [1] cralaw for Robbery with Force Upon Things was filed against complainant and several officers of the corporation before the court presided by respondent Judge allegedly for the extraction of mineral ores from the tunnel of a certain Esther Daquil, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4084. Finding probable cause, a warrant of arrest [2] cralaw dated 21 December 2004 was issued by respondent Judge, giving rise to the filing of the instant administrative complaint.
Complainant claimed that respondent Judge acted in bad faith when the latter immediately issued a warrant for their arrest despite the fact that they were not given the opportunity to rebut the accusation leveled against them as provided for under Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. He further added that "the Presiding Judge already pre-judged the complaint and was hell-bent in issuing the warrant of arrest of all the respondents and after its issuance, forwarded the records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for review as the Rules on Criminal Procedure requires, after wrecking havoc upon the respondents."
In the undated Comment [3] cralaw of respondent Judge, he vehemently denied the allegations in the complaint and explained that the court had conducted a preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 4084 pursuant to Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court before a warrant of arrest was issued against the complainant and his companions on 21 December 2004. He clarified that the warrant of arrest in question was only issued after the court found out that there was probable cause and a need to place the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
In his Reply, [4] cralaw dated 1 March 2005, complainant merely reiterated all his previous allegations against the respondent. He stressed that under Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, it is only when the Investigating Judge finds probable cause and when there is a necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice that the Investigating Judge may issue a warrant of arrest. In the instant case, there was "no necessity of placing all the accused under immediate custody as there was no probability that they would frustrate the ends of justice as many of the accused had already been appearing before his Honor's sala so that they could have been afforded the opportunity to first rebut the accusation against them before the warrant for their arrest was issued."
After study and evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The OCA reasoned out thus:
The determination of whether probable cause exists and whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to the sound judgment and discretion of respondent. Absent evident bad faith, malice or gross inexcusable negligence, this Office is not inclined to disturb such judicial discretion. At any rate, the records of the case are with the Provincial Prosecutor for [his] mandatory review. Complainant has all the right to whatever action he wants to take before said Office.
We agree with the recommendation of the OCA.
Settled is the rule that the issuance of a warrant of arrest is addressed to the sound discretion of a judge. Provided there is no grave abuse of discretion or malice, a mistake on his part in the determination of probable cause will not subject him to disciplinary action. [5] cralaw In the case at bar, there is no grave abuse of discretion nor malice on the part of respondent Judge in issuing the warrant of arrest. Thus, the dismissal of the instant complaint is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 43.
[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 69.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 57-62.
[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 96-99.
[5] cralaw Sangguniang Bayan of Batac, Ilocos Norte v. Judge Efren F. Albano, A.M. No. MTJ-94-1004, 21 August 1996, 260 SCRA 561.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
