ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. MTJ-99-1179.November 15, 1999]

DIR. ANCOG vs. JUDGE VILLANUEVA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 15, 1999 .

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1179(Director Edmundo S. Ancog vs. Judge Oliver T. Villanueva, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mabalacat, Magalang Pampanga.)

In two other cases (A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082, Marcelo Cueva v. Judge Oliver T. Villanueva, and A.M. No. 98-10-135-MCTC, Re: Letter of Sec. Rebecca Grace David, Angeles City Council on Administration of Justice on the Unusual Delay in the Resolution of Cases in the MCTC, Mabalacat, Pampanga March 29, 1999), respondent Judge Oliver T. Villanueva was ordered dismissed from the service, and disqualified for re-employment in the government service with forfeiture of all his retirement benefits. The joint decision in the two cases are now final. However, complainant, in a letter to the Court, dated April 13, 1999, contends that notwithstanding the dismissal of respondent judge from the service, the Court should resolve the instant administrative case since it involves "basic issues concerning the issuance of search warrants the rulings on which will certainly enrich our legal Jurisprudence." Complainant cites the following questions:

a) What would be the validity and probative value of handwritten additions, deletions, insertions, intercalations, alterations and amendments in a search warrant, not to mention the validity, integrity and probative value of the search warrant itself, where such handwritten insertions, intercalations, alterations and amendments are lot confirmed by the issuing judge because he failed to affix his signature or initial adjacent to the changes undertaken? Will a certification by the judge in a separate document executed 28 days after the issuance of the search warrant to the effect that the judge was aware of such insertion -- as what had happened in this case -- correct the irregularity of such insertion?

b) It is the common practice of law enforcement agents in applying for the issuance of a search warrant (as what happened in this case) to present to the judge a previously prepared search warrant ready for his signature. Should this practice continue to be tolerated or encouraged, or should it be stopped in favor of a search warrant prepared at the personal direction of the judge himself?

c) What are the guidelines and indications that a judge must strictly observe in complying with the requirement under Sec. 4, Rule 126 that "before issuing the warrant, (the judge must) personally examine in the form of searching question and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them."? Should not the judge examine the complainant with "searching questions and answers" in the same manner that an attorney in a trial would cross examine a witness, and issue the search warrant only if the judge "is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the facts upon which the application is based, or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist" (Section 5, Rule 126).

The Court fully understands the desire of complainant for a ruling on the above questions. However, precisely because the questions are important, their resolution should be put off for another day. Courts do not render advisory opinions but only adjudicate cases. They do not Sit to answer academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest herein (PACU v. Sec. of Education, 97 Phil. 806 (1955); Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)).

The purpose of administrative proceedings against judges is to discipline them while in office for their misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance in the performance of their duties. In appropriate cases, fine, suspension, or the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service may be imposed on them. If a respondent judge is no longer in the service, the other pending administrative cases against him should be dismissed (See Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Walerico B. Butalid, RTC, Branch 9, Tacloban City, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1337, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1408, and A.M. No. 97-8-242-RTC, En Banc Resolution, March 9, 1999)

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the instant complaint against Judge Oliver T. Villanueva for having become moot and academic.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Acting Div. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE