A.M. No. L-535-MJ August 21, 1976
Elsie Q. Tolentino, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Godofredo O. Tiong of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elsie Q. Tolentino filed an administrative charge against respondent Judge Godofredo Tiong for alleged irregularity and bias. The charge stemmed from the judge’s handling of a criminal case for frustrated homicide she filed against her husband, Ramon Quinto, after a violent marital quarrel. Respondent Judge, after a preliminary examination, issued a warrant of arrest and set bail at P14,000. The accused, unable to post bond, was detained for twenty-four days before escaping. Upon recapture, he was detained for another twenty-six days, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.
Subsequently, the accused, through counsel, moved to withdraw his plea and requested a second-stage preliminary investigation. Respondent Judge granted the motion. During this investigation, evidence was presented showing the accused lacked intent to kill, claiming he only intended to “teach [complainant] a lesson” to end an alleged illicit relationship. It was further revealed that the parties were first cousins, making their marriage potentially void ab initio due to incest, thus precluding the crime of parricide. Consequently, the information was amended to slight physical injuries. The accused pleaded guilty, was sentenced to thirty days imprisonment, and was ordered released as his prior detention periods exceeded the sentence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Godofredo Tiong committed irregularity or demonstrated bias warranting administrative discipline in his handling of the criminal case against Ramon Quinto.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding no administrative liability on the part of respondent Judge. The legal logic is clear: the Judge’s actions were procedurally sound and substantively justified based on the evidence presented. First, there was no violation of the Rules of Court. The conduct of a second-stage preliminary investigation upon proper motion is within judicial discretion to determine probable cause and the proper offense. The amendment of the information from frustrated homicide to slight physical injuries was a correct legal conclusion based on the evidence adduced during the investigation, which established lack of intent to kill.
Second, no bias was demonstrated. The Judge’s acceptance of the evidence regarding the parties’ familial relationship—which rendered the marriage incestuous and void—was a proper legal assessment that removed the qualifying circumstance of relationship, thereby correctly downgrading the charge. The subsequent guilty plea to the lesser charge and the imposition of a sentence offset by prior detention were logical, legal consequences. The findings of the investigating Judicial Consultants, who found the complaint without merit, were upheld. Therefore, respondent Judge committed no infraction as his actions were anchored on legal grounds and the evidence of record.