AM 598; (June, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 598-MJ June 10, 1976
MELCHOR TABANGIN, complainant, vs. EUFROCINO T. TAGAYUNA, Municipal Judge of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Melchor Tabangin charged respondent Municipal Judge Eufrocino Tagayuna with partiality for arbitrarily dismissing his criminal complaint for maltreatment against three policemen. The case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 751, stemmed from an alleged assault on Tabangin while he was a detainee. Tabangin alleged the judge dismissed the case without giving him a chance to prove his complaint, claiming he was too poor to afford counsel and uneducated to know he could seek the fiscal’s assistance, which the judge should have facilitated.
The Secretary of Justice indorsed the complaint to the Provincial Fiscal for investigation. Both parties appeared, but Tabangin declined to give oral testimony and later failed to submit any written statement or affidavit to substantiate his administrative charge. In contrast, respondent Judge submitted a detailed written statement with annexed court records, including copies of pleadings, affidavits, and orders from the criminal case.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for partiality in the provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. 751.
RULING
The Court dismissed the administrative charge, finding no evidence of partiality. The records demonstrated respondent Judge acted properly and in accordance with legal procedures. After conducting a preliminary investigation, he issued warrants for the accused policemen, informed the Municipal Mayor (leading to their suspension), and furnished the Police Commission with the complaint. Contrary to Tabangin’s claim, the fiscal’s office was duly notified of the hearings.
The provisional dismissal was justified due to repeated non-appearance of Tabangin’s counsel on three scheduled hearing dates, despite Tabangin’s assurances of representation. The accused had repeatedly invoked their constitutional right to a speedy trial and objected to further postponements. Granting a final one-hour wait for the absent counsel, the judge issued the order to provisionally dismiss the case. This action was not only a response to the accused’s demand for a speedy trial but also in compliance with the priority mandate for trying police officers under the Police Act of 1966 ( Republic Act No. 4864 ). The complainant’s failure to present any proof to support his allegation of partisan motives, coupled with the documented judicial diligence, warranted the dismissal of the administrative complaint.