A.M. No. 429-MJ. May 28, 1975.
Gaspar Parente, complainant, vs. Hon. Fernando de los Santos, Municipal Judge of Sta. Margarita, Samar, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gaspar Parente filed an administrative complaint against respondent Municipal Judge Fernando de los Santos. The allegation was that the judge failed to take any judicial action against a certain Alejandro Begonte, who had reportedly confessed to the killing of Pablito Sison in Barrio Ilo, Sta. Margarita, Samar. The complainant asserted that the respondent judge had conducted a preliminary investigation concerning the incident, yet took no steps despite the alleged confession.
The case was referred for investigation to Judge Leon Rojas, Jr. of the Court of First Instance of Samar. The investigation revealed a different factual scenario. It was found that respondent judge did not, in fact, conduct a preliminary investigation in the case. The sworn affidavits of witnesses Soledad Tangzo, Restituto Cajurao, Albino Raz, and the victim’s father, Felipe Sison, were merely taken and attested before the respondent in his capacity as a notary public. The alleged confession of Alejandro Begonte was executed and sworn to before the Municipal Mayor of Gandara, Samar. Critically, no formal criminal complaint was ever filed with the court of the respondent judge by the Chief of Police or any other complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Fernando de los Santos is administratively liable for neglect of duty in failing to act on a murder case where a suspect had allegedly confessed.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint and exonerated the respondent judge. The legal logic hinges on the fundamental principle that a judge’s duty to initiate criminal proceedings is not self-triggering but is contingent upon the filing of a proper complaint or information. The investigation established that no criminal complaint for the killing of Pablito Sison was ever filed with the respondent’s court. The affidavits sworn before him were not presented as a complaint initiating a criminal action but were merely notarized documents. The alleged confession was executed before a different official, the municipal mayor.
Since no complaint was filed, there was no pending case before Judge de los Santos upon which he could or should have acted. A judge cannot be held administratively liable for inaction on a matter not formally brought before his court. The duty to conduct a preliminary investigation arises only after a complaint is filed. The findings of the investigating judge, which showed an absence of any filed complaint, were upheld by the Court. Consequently, there was no basis to hold the respondent liable for neglect of duty, as there was no judicial proceeding to neglect. The recommendation for exoneration was approved.