A.M. No. MTJ-04-1547. April 15, 2005. JOSEFINA C. RIBAYA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE AURORA BINAMIRA-PARCIA, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Ligao City, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Josefina Ribaya filed an administrative case against Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia of the MTCC, Ligao City, concerning Criminal Case No. 8617 for estafa filed against complainant’s parents. The complaint alleged irregularities in the preliminary investigation and issuance of a warrant of arrest. Specifically, it was claimed that respondent judge issued the warrant on the very day the criminal complaint was filed without a proper preliminary examination of witnesses, one of whom was alleged to be fictitious. The accused spouses filed several motions challenging the proceedings, including a motion to quash, arguing that the MTCC had no authority to conduct the preliminary investigation after Ligao’s conversion into a city, as such power vested solely in the City Prosecutor. While these motions were pending, an arrest warrant was enforced, leading to the apprehension of Corazon Ribaya.
In her defense, respondent judge initially claimed she conducted the preliminary investigation because the Officer-in-Charge of the City Prosecutor’s Office was too busy due to reorganization. Later, in a motion for reconsideration, she shifted her argument, stating that what she conducted was merely a preliminary examination for the warrant, as the estafa case involving P12,000 did not require a formal preliminary investigation under the Rules, since the prescribed penalty was less than 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge committed an administrative offense in her handling of the criminal complaint, particularly in conducting the preliminary investigation and issuing the warrant of arrest.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of simple misconduct. The Court clarified that upon the conversion of the Municipality of Ligao into a city, the judge of the MTCC lost the authority to conduct preliminary investigations. This power is exclusively vested in the city prosecutor under Section 37 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. A judge’s assumption of this prosecutorial function constitutes an unwarranted deviation from judicial duties and undermines the appearance of impartiality, as it aligns the judge with the prosecution. This act, which was connected to her official functions, constituted simple misconduct.
However, the Court found no irregularity in the issuance of the warrant of arrest on the same day the complaint was filed. The constitutional requirement was satisfied as the judge personally determined probable cause after examining the complainant under oath. The warrant was therefore validly issued. For her simple misconduct, the Court imposed a fine of P11,000, directed her to devote her time exclusively to judicial functions, and issued a warning against repetition.