AM 782; (July, 1977) (Digest)
A.M. No. 782-MJ. July 29, 1977. JUAN OYAO, complainant, vs. PRISCO PABATAO, Municipal Judge of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Juan Oyao charged respondent Municipal Judge Prisco Pabatao with misconduct, dishonesty, and ignorance of the law. The charges arose from the judge’s order dated April 23, 1974, dismissing Criminal Case No. 2360 for theft of two steel bars, where Oyao was the offended party. The complaint was filed against Hospicio Geraldizo and Judith Geraldizo after the stolen steel bars were found in their possession. The respondent judge, after a preliminary examination, dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. His order stated that no witness saw the accused commit the theft, that the complaint was based on Oyao’s assumption, and that the accused were engaged in the scrap iron business, implying an alternative explanation for their possession of the bars. The judge then remanded the records to the Provincial Fiscal for review.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Prisco Pabatao is administratively liable for misconduct, dishonesty, or ignorance of the law for dismissing the theft case based on his finding of no probable cause.
RULING
The Supreme Court exonerated the respondent judge. The Court clarified that while the legal presumption from possession of stolen property under Section 5(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court can establish a prima facie case for theft, the determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation is a judicial function dependent on the attending facts. The judge, in his order, expressed doubt that the bars found were the specific ones stolen from Oyao. Given this factual doubt, his conclusion that there was no reasonable ground to believe the accused committed the offense fell within his discretionary authority.
The Court emphasized that for a judge to be held administratively liable for serious misconduct, there must be evidence of corrupt motives, a persistent disregard of legal rules, or a wrongful intention—not merely an error of judgment. An erroneous dismissal in a preliminary investigation, which does not bar the refiling of the case by the fiscal, constitutes at most an error of judgment, not an act of misconduct, dishonesty, or gross ignorance. No evidence was presented to show the judge acted arbitrarily or with a wrongful intent. Therefore, the charges lacked merit.