ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2180-RTJ.� July 18, 2005]

RE: MENDOZA vs. MANZANO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2005 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2180-RTJ (Re: Nestor Mendoza vs. Judge Antonio T. Manzano, RTC, Branch 37, Calamba City , Laguna.)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

COMPLAINT dated November 15, 2004 (with Enclosures) of Mr. Nestor Mendoza charging Judge Antonio T. Manzano with Gross Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of Law relative to Criminal Case No. 11677-04-C entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Nemar Mendoza," for Frustrated Murder.

Complainant, who is the father of the accused Nemar Mendoza in the aforementioned criminal case, alleged that on November 11, 2003, a criminal complaint for Frustrated Murder was filed against his son before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba. After conducting the preliminary investigation, a resolution dated January 8, 2004 was issued by said office finding probable cause for the filing of the said case in court. On the following day the information was filed in court and eventually raffled to the sala presided by the herein respondent Judge. On January 12, 2004, a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution was filed by the accused with the Office of the City Prosecutor. Simultaneously therewith, a motion to hold in abeyance the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the arraignment of the accused was filed before the sala of the respondent judge.

In the meantime and despite the pendency of the motion for reconsideration before the Office of the City Prosecutor, respondent Judge issued an Order dated January 28, 2004 denying the motion to hold proceedings in abeyance and directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the said accused. Later on, when the Office of the City Prosecutor downgraded the case into Frustrated Homicide per Resolution dated March 4, 2004, the respondent Judge then required the private prosecutor to comment on the amendment made by the public prosecutor. On the belief that the said order was not in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, accused through counsel filed a motion for reconsideration on April 15, 2004. The said motion has not yet been acted upon by the respondent despite the lapse of almost seven (7) months. On July 16, 2004, the victim, Peterson Ojeda, died. Lorena Ojeda, a sister of the victim sent a letter to the Regional State Prosecutor of Region IV, Hon. Ernesto Mendoza seeking for the inhibition of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba City, Laguna insinuating bias on the part of the Assistant City Prosecutor who resolved the motion for reconsideration. Without requiring the Office of the City Prosecutor to Comment thereon, the Regional State Prosecutor issued a directive directing the Provincial Prosecutor to prosecute the aforesaid case. On October 4, 2004 an information for Murder was filed before the respondent. Respondent then issued a warrant for the arrest of Nemar Mendoza.

COMMENT dated Mach 3, 2005 of Respondent Judge Antonio T. Manzano.

In his Comment, the respondent Judge vehemently denied the allegation of the complainant that he did not act on the motion to amend information filed on March 5, 2004 despite the lapse of almost seven (7) months. He maintained that before the accused was arrested, he had no legal standing to seek affirmative relief in court as he has not yet been placed under the jurisdiction of the latter. Besides, the matters contained in the motion are evidentiary in nature. In view of the uncertainty of the arrest of the accused Nemar Mendoza and in order that the case may not appear pending in respondent's court for unreasonable length of time, he issued an Order dated December 7, 2004 archiving the case without prejudice to reviving the same once the accused is arrested.

He further contended that he had committed no irregularity with respect to the present case. He averred that there is absolutely no gross misconduct when he issued a warrant of arrest against an accused who was formally charged for a criminal offense especially a criminal offense which is heinous. He further averred that there was likewise no ignorance of the law arising from the issuance of a warrant of arrest against an accused who has not voluntarily surrendered or appeared on court.

EVALUATION: After a thorough perusal of the records of this case, we believe that we have no other recourse but to recommend the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent. The issues raised by the complainant are purely judicial in nature and not a proper subject of an administrative complaint. If complainant disagrees with the respondent Judge's Orders, his remedy was to question the same in an appropriate proceeding rather than file an administrative complaint which is not a substitute or supplementary to judicial remedies.

It is a matter of public policy that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corrupt motive, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous (Baquiren vs. Del Rosario-Cruz, 244 SCRA 702).

The established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. An inquiry into their civil, criminal and administrative liability may be made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality (Caquioa vs. Judge Larena, etc., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1553, 20 November 2002 ).

Anent the charge that the respondent failed to act on the resolution issued by the Assistant City Prosecutor, upon motion by the complainant, downgrading the case to Frustrated Homicide, it is noteworthy to mention the ruling of the Supreme Court in the following cases:

In Crespo vs. Mogul (151 SCRA 1987), the Supreme Court held:

"xxx the filing of said information (in court) sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. xxx" The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint is filed in Court any disposition of the case (such) as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused vests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of the criminal cases even while the case is already in court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence.

However, in cases where information had already been filed in Court, it should therefore dispose of them, one way or the other, resolving all motions brought before it including a motion to dismiss, filed by the Fiscal, or deciding the cases on the merit. The prosecuting fiscal has no more control over said cases, the same having been transferred in Court (Alberto vs. dela Cruz, 98 SCRA 406-407, [1980]).

The situation is akin to the pronouncement made in Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCA 452, that whenever a formal complaint is presented in Court against an individual, the Court steps in and takes control thereof until the same is formally disposed of it Hoey vs. Provincial Fiscal, 130 SCRA 242).

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for consideration of the Honorable Court is the resolution that the instant administrative complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Antonio T. Manzano is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE