AM MTJ 02 1466; (December, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-02-1466. December 10, 2002.
CORAZON GUERRERO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MARCIAL M. DERAY, 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mallig-Quezon, Isabela, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Corazon Guerrero, the spouse of the accused in Criminal Case No. 1903 for rape, filed a letter-complaint alleging that respondent Judge Marcial M. Deray failed to resolve the preliminary examination of the case, which was filed on June 12, 1997 and terminated in 1998. The accused had been detained since June 13, 1997. Complainant’s inquiries and her counsel’s motions for resolution or release were unheeded. Respondent judge claimed in his Comment that a compromise was being negotiated, and later, the case record was misplaced at his home by his mother-in-law. He attached a resolution dated September 4, 2000, finding a prima facie case. However, a subsequent letter from the Municipal Information Officer dated June 25, 2002, confirmed that no resolution had been issued over five years after filing. A petition for habeas corpus was also filed due to the delay. Respondent judge also failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s Resolution requiring him to manifest his willingness to submit the case based on the pleadings.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Marcial M. Deray is administratively liable for the delay in resolving the preliminary examination, for gross negligence in handling court records, for disobedience to Supreme Court directives, and for making false representations.
RULING
Yes. Respondent Judge Marcial M. Deray is GUILTY of gross incompetence and inefficiency, gross misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court found that his failure to resolve the preliminary investigation for over five years constituted an unreasonable delay, violating the accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial and the judge’s duty under the Code of Judicial Conduct and administrative circulars to dispose of court business promptly. His excuse of misplaced records demonstrated gross negligence in record management. His failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s Resolution showed disrespect and insubordination. His claim of having issued a resolution was contradicted by official correspondence. Accordingly, he is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency.