SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-98-1165. June 21, 1999]
EXEQUIEL P. DOMINGO, complainant, vs. JUDGE LUIS ENRIQUEZ REYES and CLERK OF COURT ERLINDA CABRERA, MTC, GUIGUINTO, BULACAN, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
On December 11, 1996,
Exequiel P. Domingo filed a complaint against respondent Judge Luis Enriquez
Reyes, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, for
grave abuse of discretion, misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and acts
unbecoming a judge. Complainant also
filed a complaint against Clerk of Court Erlinda Cabrera, of the same court,
for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a court employee, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
It appears that on
September 4, 1996, criminal complaints were filed against complainant and a
certain Engr. Benjamin Biascan for robbery with slight physical injuries
(Criminal Case No. 5528) and malicious mischief (Criminal Case Nos. 5529 and
5530). Respondent judge conducted a
preliminary investigation of the robbery with physical injuries charge and
found no prima facie case therefor.
Instead, he found that
the “larceny of the rings” alleged in the complaint was not the primary
motivation for the violence inflicted upon the private complainants in that
case but was a mere afterthought. He
thereafter ordered the Guiguinto police to amend the robbery charge to one for
theft and to file a separate complaint for physical injuries. Respondent judge took cognizance of these
cases (Criminal Case Nos. 5573 and 5574) and issued warrants for the arrest of
complainant.
Complainant contends that
respondent is not justified in assuming jurisdiction over those cases, as the
allegations in the complaint show that the case was beyond his
jurisdiction. He further claims that
respondent judge should have refrained from handling the preliminary
investigation of those cases because, allegedly, the certificates to file
action relative to those cases were issued anomalously. Complainant points out that there was no
court order for the parties to go to the barangay office for conciliation, nor
was there an order for the barangay captain to summon the parties to a
conciliation meeting.
Complainant asserts that
respondent judge’s failure to follow the proper procedure carries with it the
presumption that he (respondent) had an ulterior motive therefor.
Complainant also claims
that the filing of cases against him was made only upon the inducement of
respondent clerk of court, Barangay Captain Jose Hilario of Sta. Rita
Guiguinto, Bulacan, and Lucita Nagal, president of the Masagana Homes
Homeowners’ Association, also in Guiguinto, Bulacan.
Respondent judge admits
having ordered the amendment of the complaint for robbery and physical
injuries. However, he claims that he
believed this to be the just and proper action to take. He points out that Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court is silent as regards situations where complaints for offenses cognizable
by the Regional Trial Court bear out evidence for offenses cognizable by the
Municipal Trial Court instead.
Respondent judge says that in such instances, he treats the cases as if
they were originally filed in the MTC.
Respondent judge avers
that the filing of this complaint against him was only meant to harass him and
to force him to inhibit himself from hearing the case, which he eventually did.
Respondent judge admitted
having overlooked the case of Balagapo v. Duquilla[1] wherein we held that it is a ministerial duty on the part of the
investigating judge to transmit the resolution of his preliminary investigation
to the Provincial Prosecutor,[2] regardless of his belief on the matter.
While the respondent
judge’s act was admittedly technically improper, he nevertheless points to
human imperfection for his oversight and begs the Court’s understanding and
compassion.
For her part, respondent
clerk of court denies having committed any form of misconduct as alleged by
complainant. She asserts that she had
nothing to do with the criminal cases filed against complainant and denies any
friendship with private complainants therein.
She says that the complaint filed against her is totally unwarranted and
malicious and meant solely to harass her.
In a resolution dated
July 7, 1997, we referred this matter to the Office of the Court Administrator
for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In its report dated April
15, 1998, the OCA found that, indeed, respondent judge erred in ordering the
amendment of the complaint filed against complainant and taking cognizance of
the cases. He should have followed the
procedure laid down in Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:
Sec. 5. Duty of investigating judge. - Within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit to the provincial or city fiscal, for appropriate action, the resolution of the case, stating briefly the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the entire records of the case, which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused; (d) the order of release of the accused and cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.
xxx
This procedure must be
followed regardless of the belief or opinion of the investigating judge
concerning the case, as we ruled in Balagapo.
However, the OCA observed
that there is no malice or intent to cause injury on the part of respondent
judge. His error is simply attributable
to human frailty which, while constituting ignorance of the law, is not so
gross as to warrant respondent judge’s dismissal. Neither does it amount to grave abuse of discretion, misconduct,
or act unbecoming a judge. Moreover,
respondent judge’s repentant attitude is a factor that mitigates his
administrative liability. The OCA
pointed out further that this is the first time that respondent judge became
the subject of a complaint, a manifestation of his good standing as a judge.
The OCA recommended that
respondent judge be reprimanded.
As for the complaint
against respondent clerk of court, the OCA recommended its dismissal on account
of complainant’s failure to substantiate his allegations. In a resolution dated October 7, 1998, we
dismissed the complaint against respondent clerk of court for lack of merit.
We agree with the
findings of the OCA as regards the act imputed against respondent judge. In Balagapo
v. Duquilla, we ruled that:
When a Municipal Judge conducts preliminary investigation, he
performs a non-judicial function, as an exception to his usual duties. The assignment of such executive function to
the Municipal Judge under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is dictated by
necessity and practical considerations.
Consequently, the findings of an investigating Judge are subject to
review by the Provincial Fiscal whose findings in turn may also be reviewed by
the Secretary of Justice in appropriate cases.
Hence, an investigating judge, after conducting a preliminary
investigation, shall perform his ministerial duty which is to transmit within
ten (10) days after the conclusion thereof the resolution of the case together
with the entire records to the Provincial Prosecutor, regardless of his belief
or opinion that the crime committed, after conducting the preliminary
investigation, falls within the original jurisdiction of his court. xxx[3]
The investigating judge
is left with no choice but to perform his ministerial duty under Section 5,
Rule 112.
Judges are expected to
keep abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence. However, we recognize that errors in the
application of procedural rules are possible, as had happened in this case,
without malicious intent on the part of the judge and without causing any harm
to any litigant.
We do not countenance
respondent judge’s failure to inform himself of recent jurisprudential
rules. His error, while we recognize it
to be an honest one and committed for the purpose of achieving the ends of
justice, must never happen again.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Luis Enriquez Reyes,
Municipal Trial Court, Guiguinto, Bulacan, is hereby REPRIMANDED for ignorance
of the law and warned that commission of the same offense will be dealt with
more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Mendoza, and Buena, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., no part. On official leave.