A.M. No. 1129-MJ. August 21, 1980. Rolando Daplas y Sarmiento, complainant, vs. Judge Belenita Toledo Arquiza, Municipal Court, Kawit, Cavite, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rolando Daplas charged respondent Municipal Judge Belenita Toledo Arquiza with ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, and gross incompetence. The case stemmed from Criminal Case No. 2121 for Robbery with Frustrated Homicide filed against Victoriano Caching, Ferdie Sapida, and Efren Alot. Respondent judge issued warrants of arrest on August 14, 1975. Only accused Efren Alot was arrested, and his case was remanded to the Court of First Instance. The other two accused remained at-large, so the municipal court had not acquired jurisdiction over their persons.
On September 1, 1975, counsel for the two at-large accused filed a Motion to Quash. Respondent judge granted the motion the very next day, September 2, 1975, quashing the charges and recalling the warrants, while also ordering the filing of an amended complaint. The complainant alleged that when the investigating officer later filed a separate complaint for Robbery against the same at-large accused, respondent judge refused to accept it. Respondent denied this refusal, claiming the complaint was accepted and docketed.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for her handling of the criminal complaint and her order quashing the charges against accused who were not yet under the court’s jurisdiction.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found her explanation untenable. She claimed she treated the Motion to Quash as a mere motion to amend, but her own September 2, 1975 Order explicitly quashed the charges. It is elementary that a court cannot validly act upon a motion to quash filed by or for accused who are not yet under its jurisdiction, as they had not been arrested. The proper procedure was to proceed with the preliminary investigation under Rule 112, as she had already found probable cause to issue arrest warrants. The misdesignation of the crime in the complaint (Robbery with Frustrated Homicide) did not justify quashal; the allegations, not the designation, control.
Her erroneous order enabled the at-large accused to remain free. The investigating judge noted that the Provincial Fiscal later found a prima facie case for Robbery against all three accused, filing an Information in the Court of First Instance. The Court also deplored respondent’s dismissive attitude during the administrative investigation. While judges may err on complex points, they must have more than a cursory grasp of elementary procedural rules and the fundamental purpose of courts to serve litigants. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary.
