G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976; April 29, 2009
Case Parties: Provincial Prosecutor Manuel F. Torrevillas, Complainant, vs. Judge Roberto A. Navidad, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a letter-complaint dated August 15, 2003, filed by Provincial Prosecutor Manuel Torrevillas, Jr., concerning the “inappropriate actuation” of Judge Roberto A. Navidad in handling cases. The complaint was referred for investigation and a judicial audit. The specific cases covered are:
1. Criminal Case No. 4037 (People v. Nestor Sandongan, for murder): Respondent judge allegedly improperly cited a witness, SPO2 Rolando Rebortura, in contempt of court for giving inconsistent testimony about recovering a shotgun. The contempt order was not formally recorded, and the witness was reportedly ordered detained for two days, though he later pleaded and was released.
2. Criminal Cases Nos. 4023 & 4024 (People v. Simproso Paghunasan, for frustrated murder and murder): Respondent granted the accused provisional liberty via an order dated July 2, 2002, after receiving the accused’s motion dated June 27, 2002. The prosecution, which filed its opposition on July 11, 2002, alleged that bail was granted for the non-bailable offense of murder without a hearing and without affording the prosecution an opportunity to prove the strength of its evidence.
3. Criminal Case No. 4147 (People v. Alfredo L. Tesoro, et al., for murder): Respondent, upon motion of the accused, recalled a warrant of arrest and allowed the accused to be placed under the temporary custody of his counsel during a hearing on December 4, 2002. The prosecution’s subsequent motion to reinstate the warrant was not acted upon before the respondent granted the accused’s motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
The respondent judge defended his actions, claiming the contempt citation was justified due to the witness’s untruths; that there was an oral petition for bail argued in open court in Criminal Cases Nos. 4023 and 4024; and that he quashed the warrant in Criminal Case No. 4147 due to the prosecution’s failure to adduce evidence and an improperly conducted preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Roberto A. Navidad committed administrative offenses warranting disciplinary action based on his handling of the specified criminal cases.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Navidad administratively liable. The investigating Justice found that the respondent committed irregularities and procedural lapses.
1. Regarding Criminal Cases Nos. 4023 and 4024, the record conclusively showed that no hearing was conducted before bail was granted for the non-bailable offense of murder. The respondent’s claim of an oral petition being heard was unsupported by the transcript of stenographic notes. Granting bail without a hearing, especially in capital offenses, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
2. Regarding Criminal Case No. 4147, the act of recalling the warrant of arrest and placing the accused charged with murder under the custody of his counsel, without a formal application for bail or a hearing on the motion for judicial determination of probable cause, was a blatant disregard of procedural rules.
3. Regarding Criminal Case No. 4037, while the act of citing a witness in contempt for lying may be within judicial discretion, the failure to reduce the order to writing as required by the Rules of Court constituted a procedural lapse.
The Court held that these acts demonstrated gross ignorance of the law and procedure, gross inefficiency, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Since Judge Navidad had been killed on January 14, 2008, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed. The Court instead imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000) in this case (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976), to be deducted from any benefits due to him.