ChanRobles Virtual law Library

OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1717-MTJ. April 19, 2006

CAPTAIN LOWEN GIL C. MARQUEZ v. JUDGE EFREN B. MALLARE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR. 19, 2006

OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1717-MTJ (Captain Lowen Gil C. Marquez v. Judge Efren B. Mallare )

Complainant Captain Lowel Gil C. Marquez (complainant) comes before this Court to vindicate what he perceives as a violation of his right, arising from a warrant of arrest served on him allegedly without due process. Complainant charges herein respondent Judge Efren B. Mallari, Metropolitan Trial Court, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija of ignorance of the law, incriminating innocent person, abuse of power and authority, conduct unbecoming of public official, criminal misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 3019. ^[1] cralaw

Complainant alleges that on 4 June 2004, a warrant of arrest against complainant for the crime of murder was issued by respondent for the death of one Roberto Alarilla on 3 June 2004. He categorically stales that it was physically impossible for him to do such felonious act due to the fact that he was not anywhere near the place where the victim was killed. In support, he recites his whereabouts from 29 May to 3 June 2004 and has submitted newspaper clippings and affidavits of fellow military officers establishing that they were with him during the aforementioned dates. He has also presented evidence showing his moral fitness and professional competence as he was twice recommended for the Medal of Valor award.

Respondent in his Comment ^[2] cralaw elucidates that a criminal case was filed against herein complainant together with two other defendants, who were at that time already detained for the murder of Roberto Alarilla. Considering that two of the defendants were detained and the request of the relative of the victim, respondent immediately held a preliminary investigation/inquest proceeding. Thereafter, he issued a warrant of arrest and recommended no bail due to the gravity of the crime.

Subsequently, the entire records of the case were forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor since the criminal case was cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The Provincial Prosecutor in turn filed an Information on 1 August 2004 against herein complainant and his two other co-accused.

Respondent further points out that though it is true that no subpoena was sent to the complainant, it was only because he fled from the authorities and it is only now that his exact address is made known.

Submitting that his acts in investigating the criminal complaint against complainant and the issuance of the warrant of arrest was in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure particularly Rule 112, Section 6(b), respondent questions the motive of complainant in filing this administrative complainant. He observes that complainant filed the instant case almost one year after the criminal case was instituted and that complainant's evidence, consisting as it does of affidavits made by subordinates, as self-serving. The other pieces of evidence such as the newspaper clippings and certifications should be presented at the proper forum in the criminal case and not in this administrative case, respondent notes.

After evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), it found that the complaint has no factual or legal basis. It reasoned:

The preliminary investigation done by the respondent was proper and was the basis for the issuance of the Resolution dated June 4, 2004, and the corresponding warrant of arrest of the same date. The determination of the probable cause by respondent was based on the sworn statements and testimonies of Solita Alarilla and Reymundo Padilla and the additional sworn statements of Rodolfo Alarilla and Arnold dela Rosa. The statements support the conclusion of respondent judge as preliminary investigator.

Just as importantly, and as correctly pointed out by the respondent, he forwarded the records of the preliminary investigation that he conducted to the Provincial Prosecutor who affirmed the findings of respondent and filed the Information for Murder against complainant. Complainant even filed a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice. The prosecutor and the Department of Justice both affirmed the submissions of the respondent judge. ^[3] cralaw

We agree with the findings of the OCA. As held in Rondina v. em>Bello , Jr.: ^[4] cralaw

As a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts may be erroneous, provided he acts in good faith and without malice. 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. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge can find refuge. ^[5] cralaw

Complainant accuses respondent of gross ignorance of the law. However, jurisprudence has taught us that to constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption. ^[6] cralaw

Moreover, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. ^[7] cralaw A careful perusal of the records of the case shows that respondent performed his function within the ambit of his responsibility. No bad faith or ill-motive can be elicited from the evidences presented by the complainant.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo , p. 1.

^[2] cralaw Id. at 17-70, with annexes.

^[3] cralaw Id. at 79.

^[4] cralaw A.M. No. CA-05-43, 8 July 2005 , 463 SCRA 1.

^[5] cralaw A.M. No. CA-05-43, 8 July 2005 , 463 SCRA 1, 14, citations omitted.

^[6] cralaw Duduaco v. Laquindanum , A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601, 11 August 2005 , 466 SCRA 428, 434 citing Negros Grace Pharmacy, Inc. v. Hilario , 416 SCRA 324.

^[7] cralaw Supra note 4 at 11.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011