ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. NO. RTJ-04-1887.
JUDGE CAROLINE B. PANGAN, Complainant, v. JUDGE CLIFTON U. GANAY and JUDGE SAMUEL R. MARTIRES, Regional Trial Court, Branches 31 and 32, respectively, Agoo, La Union, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The instant administrative case has its roots in the Comment
dated
A. The Hon. JUDGE CLIFTON GANAY should be asked to explain why, on the basis of an UNAPPROVED RECOMMENDATION by an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor:
1. he entertained a Special Proceedings of doubtful pedigree and intervened during the preliminary investigation stage of the investigation of a heinous crime;
2. and hastily and prematurely ordered the release of the suspect even if an officer duly mandated by law had already found probable cause and has issued a warrant for the arrest of said suspect and even if the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor was still reviewing the case pursuant to law;
3. and he issued the said order without even following the basic principles of due process;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
All of which acts are in clear violation of the new Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That to allow HON. JUDGE CLIFTON U. GANAY to get away with what he did, would be to open the doors to other Judges of the Regional Trial Courts to precipitately and prematurely intervene and influence the preliminary investigation and review of criminal cases under the guise of a Special Proceeding;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
c. The HON. JUDGE SAMUEL MARTIREZ (sic) should be asked to explain why:
1. Despite the fact that a valid Information has been filed in his court for the heinous crime of MURDER, with NO BAIL recommended against JOEL TOTO ABRIL, he DID NOT ISSUE A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST and as a result of which the said accused continues to remain at large;
2. Why, despite the
filing of a valid Information for MURDER, with NO BAIL recommended, during the
arraignment of the accused JOEL TOTO ABRIL on
All of which acts are in violation of the clear provisions of the law.2 ςrνll
The complainant alleged that she handled the preliminary
investigation of the complaint for murder filed against Joel Abril, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 5584. After searching questions were asked, she found
probable cause for the filing of the offense charged and directed the issuance
of a warrant of arrest so as not to frustrate the ends of justice. Abril then
filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to quash the warrant of arrest,
which the complainant Judge denied. The case was, thereafter, transmitted to
the Provincial Prosecutor.On
Due to the conflicting recommendations of the complainant and
Prosecutor Lachica, Provincial Prosecutor Rogelio Hipol created a three-man
panel to reinvestigate the case composed of 1st Assistant Prosecutor
Julio B. Tecan and 3rd Assistant Prosecutors Oscar B. Corpuz and Georgina D. Hidalgo.
The panel sustained the findings of probable cause made by the complainant
Judge and resolved to indict Abril. An Information for murder was then filed on
On July 3, 2001, Abril appeared for arraignment before the sala of respondent Judge Martires. However, the latter did not issue any warrant of arrest despite the charge of murder against Abril. Prosecutor Lachica then filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of evidence, but failed to disclose that a review of the case was being conducted by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.
Abril filed a petition, which was later amended, before the sala of respondent Judge Ganay entitled Re: Petition to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and/or for the Release of the Respondent from Detention, Joel Toto Abril v. People of the Philippines, docketed as Special Proceding Case No. A-920. Respondent Judge Ganay granted the amended petition and ordered the release of Abril, despite the fact that the case was still pending review before the Provincial Prosecutor. The complainant alleged that respondent Judge Ganay should have respected the law and the offices tasked with the preliminary investigation and review of the case. Thus, despite the warrant of arrest issued by the complainant Judge, Abril was released prior to his arraignment.
The complainant averred that she was neither impleaded nor
notified in the said case, even though she was the one who issued the assailed
warrant of arrest; the only respondent in the said case was the Office of the
Prosecutor, Agoo, La Union, represented by Prosecutor Lachica. She further
contended that respondent Judge Ganay hastily issued the order for the release
of Abril, considering that the amended petition was filed only on
In his Comment dated
On
Eventually, these warring positions would be resolved by the Provincial Prosecutor, when he created a panel of three (3) public prosecutors to resolve them, one way or the other.
BUT IN THE MEANWHILE[,] the lot of Joel Toto Abril was miserable because he remained in detention in the slammer.
This explains why he (thru counsel) brought his misery to Branch 31, RTC, under Judge Ganay by petitioning the Court for the quashal of the questionable warrant of arrest which Judge Pangan issued, by virtue of which Abril was arrested.3 ςrνll
Thereafter, respondent Judge Ganay issued an Order4 granting the petition on April 13, 2000, on the ground, among others, that the warrant ordering his arrest was issued hastily and was thus illegal.
Respondent Judge Ganay contended that not all judicial actions are proper subjects of an administrative complaint; otherwise, there will be no Judge left to man the ramparts of our Temples of Justice.5 He posited that the complainant Judge panicked when Abril filed a complaint against her in connection with the arrest warrant she issued. The respondent maintained that the warrant the complainant Judge issued was illegal and that he had to act upon it speedily.
In his Comment dated
1. On
a. A Criminal
Complaint for Murder dated
b. On that same day
(
c. Then, by her
Order of
d. At
e. By the Commitment
Order dated
2.On
3. On that same day,
4. The following day, by the Order of
5. On
6. On
7. Finding the existence of probable cause against the accused for the crime of murder, Judge Pangan in her Resolution of February 10, 2000, DENIED the motion for reconsideration and ordered that the records of the case be forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
8. The Panel of Assistant Provincial Prosecutors, on
9. On
10. Simultaneously, the private complainant, also on
11. On
12. By the Order of the Court of November 9, 2000, the hearing on
the Motion to Dismiss was set on
13. Of the incidents during the hearing of
14. On
15. However, the hearings scheduled on
16. By the Order of
17. On
18. By the Notice of Hearing dated
19. Of matters taken up after the arraignment on
20. On
21. Victoria Alabaso appeared on
22. On
23. After hearing the Motion To Dismiss on
24. On
While he admitted that he did not issue the warrant of arrest against Abril, respondent Judge Martires explained that he was justified in so doing. After studying the records of the preliminary investigation, as transmitted by the Prosecutors Office, he immediately noticed that the accused had already been arrested. There was thus no longer a necessity to issue an arrest warrant or commitment order in such case, as it would be a mere superfluity. He instead scheduled the arraignment of the accused on November 14, 2000.
Judge Martires further averred that while Criminal Case No.
A-3691 was raffled to RTC, Branch 32 as early as
Anent the Order issued by Judge Ganay on April 13, 2000, Judge Martires further explained as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
By requiring the accused to report to the Officer-in-Charge of
Branch 31 every Monday morning starting
With the Order of Judge Ganay, a legal or procedural problem was
posed. Since the Court of Judge Martires is co-equal in rank with the Court of
Judge Ganay Judge Martires, [it] cannot set aside the Order of Judge Ganay of
So that, if it was really the prosecutions desire to have the
accused committed to jail, it should have done two things. First, by filing a
motion before Judge Ganay to set aside its Order of
Granting again for the sake of argument that the prosecution has done what is suggested above, still Judge Martires must not issue a commitment order, in light of the motion to dismiss filed by the private complainant. Doing so would be premature. As dictated by the events, the motion to dismiss must first be resolved before any decision for the commitment of the accused is made.7 ςrνll
Judge Martires thereafter charged the complainant Judge with gross ignorance of the law, violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and violation of Canon 2, Rules 2.01 and 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, relative to her issuance of the warrant of arrest against Abril, and requested for an investigation on the matter.
In her Reply dated
Finally, to substantiate her contention that the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest against Joel Abril is in order, the office of the Provincial Prosecutor, San Fernando City, La Union, sustained her findings and filed the Information against Joel Abril for Murder. Despite several motions for reconsideration, to the extent of instituting another case against another person, a certain Maning Delos Santos, the panel of prosecutors, constituted by 1st Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Julio B. Tecon, 1st Assistant City Proscutor (on detail) Oscar B. Corpuz and 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina D. Hidalgo, repeatedly sustained the filing of Murder charges against Joel Abril and dismissed the case against Delos Santos (Annexes 10, 19, 20, 21 and 22).8 ςrνll
The case was assigned to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando for investigation, report and recommendation.
In her Final Report and Recommendation dated May 4, 2004, the Investigating Justice found that upon the complainant Judges denial of Abrils motion to quash the warrant of arrest, including the motion for reconsideration of such motion, the records of the case were transmitted to the Office of the Prosecutor for appropriate action, and remained thereat until the panel of three (3) prosecutors submitted a resolution on June 1, 2000.According to the Investigating Justice:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
In the interim that the case was still under review by the prosecutors office, there was no court to speak of where the accused can file a motion to quash warrant of arrest because no information was filed yet in any court. Neither can accused Abril file a request for reinvestigation because as stated, his case was under review with the prosecutors office.
Under the circumstances of the case, the act of accused Abril in filing a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, was the only logical and proper legal remedy at that time. Respondent Judge Ganay correctly stated that the petition was nomenclatured as special proceeding by accused Abrils lawyer probably because the case was special in the sense that such kind of petition was not based and patterned upon any of the rules under the Rules of Court. Equity defined as justice outside the law and grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of positive law, justifies the act of respondent Judge Ganay in taking cognizance of the petition.9 ςrνll
Anent the charges against respondent Judge Martires, the Investigating Justice found the same to have been unsubstantiated, and opined that the respondent Judge exercised his sound discretion in not issuing the warrant of arrest against Abril.
Thus, the Investigating Justice recommended the dismissal of the case against the respondents for lack of merit.
The findings of the Investigating Justice are well-taken.
It bears stressing that it is within the discretion of the Judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of an accused in a criminal case.A Judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.However, if he finds probable cause, then he is mandated by law to issue such warrant.10 While before, it was mandatory for the investigating Judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating Judges power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. The arrest of the accused can be ordered only in the event that the prosecutor files the case and the Judge of the Regional Trial Court finds probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest.11 ςrνll
In the case at bar, both respondent Judges, upon careful perusal of the records of the case before them, exercised their discretion and opted not to issue a warrant of arrest against Abril. As found by the Investigating Justice:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
At that precise moment, accused Abril could not avail of the following options mentioned by the Honorable Court Administrator:
2.X x x to ask the Provincial Fiscal for a reinvestigation of the charge against them. If unsatisfied with the fiscals resolution, they can ask for a review by the Minister of Justice (Sec. 1[d], RA 5180 as amended by P.D. 911);
3. if their Petition for Review does not prosper, they can file a motion to quash the information in the trial court (Rule 117, Rules of Court).
4. If the motion is denied, they can appeal the judgment of the court after the case shall have been tried on the merits.
Records reveal that accused Abril cannot avail of the above remedies in view of the following circumstances:
1. the records of the case were transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor, for appropriate action. Technically speaking, Abrils case was under investigation then. Hence, no reinvestigation can be requested since the matter was obviously undergoing a review or investigation;
2. no review by the Department of Justice can be made since there was no resolution by the Prosecutor yet;
3. there was nowhere to file the motion to quash information since there was no trial court to speak of as there was no information filed; and
3. appeal from the complainants denial of the motion to quash criminal complaint and/or recall the arrest order is not a plain and speedy remedy.
Accused Abril was committed to prison on
It was only on
To deny accused Abril of a legal remedy during the interval from
his arrest,
Respondent Judge Ganays declaration that there is nothing in the
warrant of arrest or in the order dated
Respondent Judge Martires correctly manifested that while Prosecutor Lachica was requesting for the commitment of accused Abril, Prosecutor Lachica was also manifesting that they would be moving for the dismissal of the case as they would be filing a case against another person.
Confronted with this peculiar situation, respondent Judge Martires rightly did not issue a warrant of arrest. There was no reason to subject accused Abril to incarceration when the prosecution believed that accused Abril was innocent of the crime charged.
That exceptional situation called for the sound discretion of the Judge and respondent Judge Martires correctly exercised his discretion.12 ςrνll
It is settled that 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. 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.13 Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned.14 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.15 Furthermore, even in an administrative case, the Rules of Court require that if the respondent Judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.The judiciary to which the respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, competent evidence should be presented, especially since the charge is penal in character.16 ςrνll
Indeed, while it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against Judges and other court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.17 ςrνll
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Judge Clifton U. Ganay and Judge Samuel R. Martires is DISMISSEDfor lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, TINGA, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Entitled Joel Toto Abril v. Judge Caroline Pangan.
2 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
3 Rollo, pp. 179-180.
4 The dispositive portion of the said order reads:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing premises, this Court orders the release of Joel Toto Abril from detention. He should not be allowed to stay one minute longer in the BJMP slammer.
The Jail Warden, BJMP, Agoo, La Union, is hereby directed to release Joel Abril from detention, unless he is facing other criminal charges in this Court or in other Courts wherein his detention is ordered.
Mr. Joel Abril is hereby directed to appear before this Court every Monday morning and register his appearance before the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court (Ms. Precilla Olympia P. Eslao of this Court) starting April 17, 2000 until further orders of this Court.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 573).
[5 Id. at 210.
6 Id. at 419-423.
7 Id. at 435-436.
8 Id. at 486.
9 Report and Recommendation, pp. 19-20.
10 Concerned Citizen of Maddela v. Dela Torre-Yadao, 393 SCRA 217 (2002).
11 Arcilla v. Palaypayon, 364 SCRA 464 (2001), citing Flores v. Sumaljag, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1115, 290 SCRA 568 (1998).
12 Report and Recommendation, pp. 21-23.
13 Balsamo v. Suan, 411 SCRA 189 (2003).
14 Cruz v. Iturralde, 402 SCRA 65 (2003).
15 Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
16 Ejercito v. Suerte, 410 SCRA 287 (2003).
17 Cruz v. Iturralde, supra.