ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

Administrative Matter OCA-IPI No. 05-2281-RTJ. January 23, 2006]

RUFINA BASOS AND LILIA A. DARISAY v. JUDGE CHARITO B. GONZALES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, BANGUED, ABRA]

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN. 23, 2006

Administrative Matter OCA-IPI No. 05-2281-RTJ (Rufina Basos and Lilia A. Darisay v. Judge Charito B. Gonzales, Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued, Abra )

A verified Complaint [1] cralaw was filed by Rufina Basos and Lilia A. Darisay against Judge Charito Gonzales, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Bangued, Abra, charging the latter with Abuse of Authority, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment, and Gross Ignorance of the Law relative to Criminal Cases No. 2004-210 and 211 entitled "People v. Erwin Viloria, et al."

Complainants are relatives of the victims in the above-mentioned criminal cases. According to them, two (2) separate informations for murder were filed on October 26, 2004 against the accused with the RTC, Branches 1 and 2 of Bangued, Abra. On the same day, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings, manifesting their intention to file a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice. The cases were consolidated to Branch 1, the sala of respondent judge.

On November 5, 2004, respondent judge directed the public prosecutor to submit the record of the preliminary investigation to the Branch Clerk of Court for attachment to the case records. On November 11, 2004, accused Hamilcar Bigornia filed an Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, to Suspend, Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Arrest Warrant and Withdraw Pending Motion to Suspend Proceedings. The public prosecutor filed a comment on the urgent motion, praying for the denial thereof on the ground that the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused.

In an Order [2] cralaw dated November 30, 2004, respondent judge directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against accused Erwin Viloria but dismissed the case against the other accused, Hamilcar Bigornia, Rogie Baro, Sylvester Bilgera, Caesar Valera and Richard Mailed, because the evidence on record failed to establish probable cause.

Complainants allege that respondent judge abused his authority in so ruling because the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused when the Order was issued. Further, respondent judge allegedly did not bother to advise the prosecution to amend the information nor to direct the prosecutor to present additional evidence.

Respondent judge filed a Comment [3] cralaw dated July 18, 2005, averring that although the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused, he is mandated by the Rules of Court to determine the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. He contends that he judiciously examined the resolution of the investigating prosecutor and the supporting documents attached to the record, and in the exercise of judicial discretion, he resolved to dismiss the case against the other accused since the evidence on record failed to establish probable cause against them.

He cites Sec. 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that the judge may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record fails to establish probable cause. He adds that if complainants are not satisfied with his ruling, they should have elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by the avenues provided under the Rules of Court.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit because the issues raised in the complaint involve judicial matters which only courts of law may properly deal with. [4] cralaw

We agree.

In order to discipline a judge, it must clearly be shown that the judgment or order rendered is unjust as being contrary to law and that the judge rendered it with conscious and deliberate intent to do injustice. Judges cannot be subjected to liability-civil, criminal or administrative-for any of their official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as they act in good faith. It is only when they act fraudulently or corruptly, or with gross ignorance that they may be held criminally or administratively responsible. [5] cralaw

Even on the assumption that respondent judge erred in dismissing the case against all but one of the accused, his action may not be subject to disciplinary action given that the circumstances of the case do not show that he acted with malice or bad faith. An erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Besides, complainants are afforded by the Rules of Court the remedy of elevating any error committed by respondent judge to a higher court for review and correction. The instant administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. [6] cralaw

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

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-8.

[2] cralaw Id. at 125-128.

[3] cralaw Id. at 147-153.

[4] cralaw Id. at 184-186.

[5] cralaw Contreras v. Judge Solis, 329 Phil. 376 (1996).

[6] cralaw Tan v. Adre, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, January 31, 2005 , 450 SCRA 145.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com