AM 2162; (December, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. 2162-MJ December 14, 1981
INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE, complainant, vs. HON. ANASTACIO ZAMUCO, Municipal Judge of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
The Station Commander of the Aguilar Integrated National Police filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Anastacio Zamuco for habitual absenteeism and gross ignorance of the law. The complaint alleged that over 100 cases were pending due to the judge’s absences, with some delayed for over five years. On the charge of ignorance, it cited four instances: dismissing a slander case based solely on an affidavit of desistance without fiscal intervention; dismissing a grave threat case because the complainant was not physically present when the threat was uttered; assuming jurisdiction over a firearms case within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Military Tribunal; and prohibiting the Station Commander from administering oaths.
In his comment, Judge Zamuco denied habitual absenteeism, attributing pending cases to accused-at-large in Masagana loan cases. He defended his actions, stating no fiscal appeared in the slander case; he believed threat required the victim’s presence; he only conducted a preliminary investigation on the firearms case; and he never prohibited the administration of oaths. A judicial audit was subsequently conducted.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Anastacio Zamuco is administratively liable for habitual absenteeism and gross ignorance of the law.
RULING
The Court, through Justice Fernandez, found the charges of habitual absenteeism unsubstantiated. The audit revealed only 191 total pending cases, with many criminal cases archived because the accused were at-large. The docket was not clogged due to absences. Regarding gross ignorance, the Court exonerated the judge on three counts. The dismissal of the slander case was proper as no fiscal had entered an appearance. Assuming jurisdiction over the firearms case was limited to a preliminary investigation, which was within municipal court authority. The claim of prohibiting oaths was contradicted by records showing the Station Commander had administered them.
However, the Court found the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law for dismissing the grave threat case. The legal logic is that the crime of threat under the Revised Penal Code can be committed even if the person threatened is not physically present at the moment the threat is uttered, as it can be conveyed through an indirect challenge. The judge’s ruling constituted a clear error regarding a basic legal principle. Nonetheless, the Court found no deliberate intent to do injustice. Considering the judge had already reached compulsory retirement age, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand.