G.R. No. A.M. Matter No. 6998-MJ February 10, 1981
SIMPLICIO J. CUSIT, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE PANTALEON V. JURADO, Sta. Teresita, Cagayan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Simplicio J. Cusit filed a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law against six individuals in the municipal court presided by respondent Judge Pantaleon V. Jurado. After finding probable cause, Judge Jurado issued a warrant of arrest in April 1978 and terminated the preliminary investigation in June 1978. The judge claimed that the sixty-page record of the case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance (CFI) in January 1979 by his clerk of court. However, no proof of receipt from the CFI existed, and the record was irretrievably lost.
Cusit alleged that Judge Jurado instructed the wives of the accused to convince the witnesses to withdraw their statements to facilitate an amicable settlement, thereby deliberately delaying the elevation of the records. He further alleged that one accused boasted the case would “vanish like smoke.” Judge Jurado admitted advising the parties to talk to the complainant and witnesses for a possible settlement, asserting there was nothing illegal in such advice and that the record had been elevated before Cusit’s complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jurado is administratively liable for his actions in handling the criminal case.

RULING

Yes, Judge Jurado is administratively liable for dereliction of duty and unethical conduct. The Supreme Court found him guilty of violating Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the judge to transmit the record of the case to the clerk of the CFI without delay upon conclusion of the preliminary investigation. Judge Jurado not only caused undue delay in the transmission but also failed to verify whether his clerk of court had actually delivered the record to the CFI, resulting in its permanent loss and potentially causing a miscarriage of justice.
Furthermore, his attempt to facilitate a compromise in a criminal case for cattle rustling, a public crime, was censurable and unethical. The Court emphasized the elementary rule that criminal liability generally cannot be compromised, as it is contrary to public policy to allow agreements that stifle criminal prosecutions. His actions demonstrated ignorance of this fundamental legal principle. As a disciplinary measure under the Judiciary Law, Judge Jurado was ordered to pay a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, severely reprimanded, and directed to assist in reconstituting the lost record. A copy of the decision was ordered attached to his personal record.