A.M. No. 242-MJ. June 19, 1979.
Maximo Ubas, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Benito P. Cinco of Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maximo Ubas filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Benito P. Cinco for alleged abuse of authority and ignorance of the law. Ubas alleged that the respondent judge prematurely terminated a criminal case two days before its scheduled trial and rendered a decision despite the offense being allegedly cognizable by the Court of First Instance, thereby depriving Ubas, as the offended party, of his right to aid the prosecution. The case was referred to Executive Judge Melquiades S. Sucaldito for investigation.
The investigation revealed that the criminal case filed by the Chief of Police against Benjamin Manginsay was for Double Physical Injuries, not Frustrated Homicide. The accused, while detained, demanded an immediate trial, was arraigned, and pleaded guilty to the charge. Respondent Judge then rendered a decision sentencing the accused. Subsequently, complainant Ubas executed an affidavit acknowledging justification for the judge’s actions given the guilty plea. During the administrative investigation, Ubas and Judge Cinco appeared, and the judge affirmed his actions under oath.

ISSUE

Whether Municipal Judge Benito P. Cinco committed abuse of authority and ignorance of the law in handling the criminal case for Double Physical Injuries.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint and exonerated Judge Cinco. The legal logic is clear: the judge acted within his jurisdiction and in accordance with procedural law. The charge filed was for Double Physical Injuries, an offense within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court at the time. There was no factual basis for the complainant’s claim that it was a case for Frustrated Homicide, which would have been beyond the judge’s authority.
Upon the accused’s voluntary plea of guilty, the judge was legally obligated to proceed to judgment. The accused’s right to a speedy trial, a constitutional guarantee, was properly respected by the immediate proceedings following his plea. The judge’s actions were a correct application of the law, not an abuse of discretion. The complainant’s grievance stemmed from a perception of a disproportionate penalty, not from any judicial misconduct. His subsequent withdrawal of the complaint and affidavit of acknowledgment corroborate that the judge merely performed his duty. Therefore, no administrative liability attaches to the respondent.