FIRST DIVISION
LEONARDO C. LANDAYAN, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1632
Complainant, (formerly OCA IPI No.
04-1634-MTJ)
Present:
-
versus -
PANGANIBAN, C.J., Chairperson,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and
JUDGE ROMEO A. CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ.
QUILANTANG, Presiding
Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Promulgated:
Obando, Bulacan,
Respondent.
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Judge Romeo A. Quilantang, Municipal
Trial Court (MTC), Obando, Bulacan, stands charged with gross ignorance of the
law, grave misconduct (violation of Republic Act No. 3019), and falsification
of public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, relative to
Criminal Case No. 6763 for grave threats; Criminal Case No. 6764 for grave
coercion; and Criminal Case No. 6765 for serious illegal detention.
In his Complaint-Affidavit[1]
dated
Complainant also alleged that
respondent Judge issued his Joint Resolution[7] on
In his Comment, respondent Judge denied
the allegations against him; contrary to the complainant’s claim, all the
criminal complaints were subscribed before him on the same day, that is,
2. Relative to [the] alleged violation of Rule 112, Complainant, in Par. 17 of his complaint, and in making it appear the respondent deviated and violated the Rules of Court with intention to [mislead] this Honorable Office deliberately and unfaithfully cited section 6(b) of Rule 112, to wit:
x x x When the preliminary
investigation is conducted by the Judge himself, HIS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR.
Under the said rule, the phrase in bold letters are not a part thereof, the intention of the complainant is to make it appear [that] the respondent deviated from the rule, when the latter didn’t forward the result of the preliminary determination of probable cause to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.
3. But under Rule 122, section 1 thereof, it is provided that the conduct of preliminary investigation is mandatory only if the offense charged carries a penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, without regard to the fine, and not to all criminal cases with a penalty not exceeding six (6) years, therefore falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, as claimed by the complainant in his citation of Section 1, Rule 112 under par. 16 of his complaint.
4. The rule and jurisprudence (People v. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212) are one in recognizing that the allegations in the complaint determine the crime charged and the jurisdiction of the court and not the title of the offense.
5. Since the respondent determined in the allegations of the complaints for Grave Threat, Grave Coercion and Serious Illegal Detention, that the offense is light in character, the penalty therefore is way below the one prescribed for the conduct of mandatory preliminary investigation. Hence, the respondent, in lieu of forwarding to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office the result of the preliminary investigation, set the case for arraignment only for Grave Threat and Grave Coercion, and dismissed the case for Serious Illegal Detention because of only one element present in the latter, which the restraint of liberty, which is in common with the element of Coercion. The complainant misconstrued the joint resolution by claiming [that] the element of Serious Illegal Detention cannot be absorbed by the less grave offense of Coercion. He may be talking of an absorption of a crime in this case.
6. The complainant’s contention that since the Serious Illegal Detention was dismissed, his counter-charged (sic) for Perjury/Malicious Prosecution (Serious Illegal Detention) shall have been admitted cannot hold water, because the former was dismissed not because it was [a] fabricated charge or non-existent, but due to the insufficiency in the required elements of the offense for his indictment.
7. In light of the foregoing, the respondent did not violate any Rule
on Criminal Procedure particularly section 3, Rule 112 thereof.[9]
In its Report[10]
dated
The
Court agrees that respondent Judge is administratively liable. It is clear from
Section 5, Rule 112[12]
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure[13] that
a municipal trial court judge tasked with conducting a preliminary
investigation is required to forward to the provincial or city prosecutor the entire
records of the case.[14] The importance of transmitting the records to
the prosecutor was explained by the Court in Manalastas v. Flores,[15] and later reiterated in Castro v. Bartolome:[16]
A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. It is an executive, not a judicial function. It falls under the authority of the prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control all criminal actions. However, since there are not enough fiscals and prosecutors to investigate the crimes committed in all the municipalities all over the country, the government was constrained to assign this function to judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Thus, when a municipal judge conducts preliminary investigation, he performs a non-judicial function as an exception to his usual duties. His findings, therefore, are subject to review by the provincial or city prosecutor whose findings, in turn, may be reviewed by the Secretary of Justice in appropriate cases. Hence, the investigating judge, after conducting a preliminary investigation, must perform his ministerial duty to transmit within ten (10) days the resolution of the case together with the entire records to the provincial or city prosecutor. The performance of this non-judicial or executive function, however, does not place judges beyond the disciplinary power of this Court for any act or omission in relation to or as an incident to their task, which is only in addition to their judicial functions. Thus, the Court has imposed disciplinary sanctions on judges for their ignorance or deliberate disregard of the laws on preliminary investigation.
Thus, an MTC judge’s failure to
transmit the resolution and records as mandated by the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure renders him or her administratively liable.[17]
Gross ignorance of the law,
incompetence, and inefficiency are characteristics impermissible in a judge. Failure to observe the basic laws and rules is
not only inexcusable, but also renders a judge susceptible to administrative
sanction for gross ignorance of the law.[18] There will be great faith in the
administration of justice if the party litigants believe that the occupants of
the bench cannot justly be accused of apparent deficiency in their grasp of
legal principles.[19]
The Code of Judicial Conduct provides
that a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence,[20] and should
be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.[21] When a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity
with the law and the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the
courts. Thus, he or she must be
proficient in the law, and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing
jurisprudence, considering that ignorance thereof can easily be the mainspring
of injustice.[22]
WHEREFORE, for
failing to transmit the records to the City or Provincial Prosecutor, which
amounts to gross ignorance of the law and neglect of duty, [23] respondent
Judge Romeo A. Quilantang is meted a FINE
of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00). He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO
J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO
YNARES-
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 1-6.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] The provision reads:
SEC. 5. Resolution of investigating judge and its
review. – Within ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation, the
investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial
or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
for appropriate action. The resolution shall state the findings of facts and
the law supporting his action, together with the record of the case which shall
include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the
affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c)
the undertaking or bail of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the
transcripts of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation; and (e) the
order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal
of the complaint.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records, the provincial or city prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be, shall review the resolution of the investigating judge on the existence of probable cause. Their ruling shall expressly and clearly state the facts and the law on which it is based and the parties shall be furnished with copies thereof. They shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no probable cause is found against him.
[13] Judges of first level courts are now no longer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation (effective October 3, 2005 per Resolution dated August 30, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts).
[14]
[15] A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1523,
[16] A.M.
No. MTJ-05-1589,
[17] Manalastas v. Flores, supra, at 306.
[18] Prosecutor Contreras v. Judge Monserate,
456 Phil. 655, 664 (2003).
[19] Supena v. De la Rosa, 334 Phil. 671, 682
(1997), citing Mamolo, Sr. v. Narisma,
252 SCRA 613, 618-619 (1996).
[20] Rule
1.01, code of judicial conduct.
[21] Rule 3.01, code of judicial conduct.
[22] Grageda v. Tresvalles, A.M. No.
MTJ-04-1526,
[23] Prosecutor Contreras v. Judge Monserate, supra,
at 665.