G.R. No. A.M. No. 2030-MJ May 15, 1981
TITO C. TOLEDO, complainant, vs. HON. EMILIO STA. ROMANA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Tito C. Toledo charged Municipal Judge Emilio Sta. Romana, Jr. with irregularity in handling a preliminary investigation for frustrated homicide against Ismael Buaya. The complaint alleged that on July 8, 1978, Buaya struck Toledo with a stone and hacked him. The case was assigned to respondent judge after the original judge inhibited himself. During the preliminary investigation, Toledo and his witnesses testified, and a medical certificate indicated the wound would heal in less than ten days.
Based on this evidence, the respondent judge concluded the act constituted only slight physical injuries, not frustrated homicide. He reasoned the single, non-mortal wound and the accused’s immediate flight negated intent to kill. Consequently, he issued an order dated August 29, 1978, directing the Sub-Station Commander to amend the complaint to slight physical injuries. The judge then proceeded to arraign the accused, accept a guilty plea, and render a conviction for that lesser offense.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a serious irregularity by ordering the amendment of the criminal complaint from frustrated homicide to slight physical injuries during the preliminary investigation and then trying the case on its merits.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed a serious irregularity demonstrating ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that a judge conducting a preliminary investigation has no legal authority to determine or alter the designation of the crime charged. The judge’s sole duty is to determine whether the evidence supports a prima facie case that a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. The characterization of the offense is beyond the scope of this preliminary stage.
The power to amend a complaint or information, whether in substance or form, before the accused pleads is vested solely in the prosecuting officer, not the judge. The Court cited consistent jurisprudence, including Bais vs. Tugaoen, which holds that a judge cannot motu proprio change the crime charged during a preliminary investigation. If the case is within the court’s jurisdiction, the judge must try it based on the filed charge and may convict for a lesser offense only after a full trial. If the case is within the original jurisdiction of a higher court, the judge must elevate it as charged, even if personally believing a lesser crime was committed. By usurping the prosecutor’s discretion and prematurely adjudicating the crime’s classification, respondent judge violated established procedure. He was found guilty and fined an amount equivalent to three months’ salary.