A.M. No. 791-MJ August 27, 1981
Diosdado B. Paala, complainant, vs. Hon. Alberto Regino, Municipal Judge of Pio Duran, Albay, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Diosdado Paala, a municipal councilor, filed an administrative case against respondent Municipal Judge Alberto Regino for grave abuse of discretion, ignorance of the law, extortion, and partiality. The charges stemmed from the judge’s handling of a robbery and physical injuries case filed by Paala’s nephew, Ramon Paala. The complainant alleged that Judge Regino, prior to and during the proceedings, repeatedly offered the victim P750.00 to settle and not file the case, threatened the victims with jail if they refused, and eventually dismissed the criminal case for lack of a prima facie case. The complainant further claimed the dismissal was improper and motivated by the judge’s desire to protect the accused.
Respondent judge denied all accusations. He asserted he dismissed the robbery case due to insufficient evidence but had recommended prosecuting the accused for physical injuries. He denied any knowledge of settlement offers or money, claiming impartiality. After the complaint was referred for investigation, the Inquest Judge found the charges of extortion and malicious dismissal unsubstantiated, noting that evidence suggested the victim’s mother initiated settlement discussions, not the judge.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alberto Regino is administratively liable for the charges of grave abuse of discretion, ignorance of the law, extortion, and partiality.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent judge not liable for extortion, partiality, or gross ignorance in dismissing the case. The Court concurred with the Inquest Judge’s findings that the charge of offering money to settle was not proven; evidence indicated the initiative came from the victim’s family. The dismissal of the criminal case for robbery was deemed procedurally proper, as the judge found no prima facie case, and his simultaneous recommendation to prosecute for physical injuries negated any claim of absolute bias toward the accused.
However, the Court found the judge administratively liable for a procedural lapse constituting simple negligence. He issued a warrant of arrest without having first conducted a preliminary examination, acting merely on the complainant’s insistence that the accused was about to leave town. While he later recalled the warrant when the complainant failed to produce the victim for the required examination, this initial irregularity in issuing the warrant without the proper judicial determination of probable cause warranted an admonition. The Court emphasized that judges must strictly comply with procedural rules governing the issuance of warrants of arrest. Respondent Judge Alberto Regino was ADMONISHED with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.