A.M. No. MTJ-92-720 September 5, 1996
SIMEON BENJAMIN, SR., complainant, vs. JUDGE EUGENIO C. ALABA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Simeon Benjamin, Sr. charged Judge Eugenio Alaba with grave abuse of discretion for dismissing a murder case (People v. Geriza and Maningo) involving the death of his son. The complaint alleged that the judge, without any motion from the parties, twice amended the information—first to drop one accused and second to reduce the charge to homicide—before conducting a preliminary investigation. During the investigation, the judge required the submission of “clarificatory questions.” After the prosecution witnesses and private prosecutor failed to appear for several scheduled hearings, the judge dismissed the case for lack of a prima facie case, forwarding a recommendatory dismissal to the Provincial Prosecutor, who then dismissed the case.
The administrative investigation, conducted by Executive Judge Getulio Francisco, revealed further irregularities. It was found that the respondent judge facilitated conferences between the defense counsel and the victim’s widow inside his chamber concerning a possible settlement of the civil liability, during which the complainant was ordered to leave. The judge, though not directly participating, was present during these discussions aimed at settling the case, which went beyond the permissible scope of addressing only the civil aspect during preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Eugenio Alaba is administratively liable for his conduct in handling the preliminary investigation and dismissal of the murder case.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that Judge Alaba failed to adhere to the proper procedures under Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. His actions in amending the complaint without a proper basis and, more critically, in facilitating conferences that improperly aimed at a holistic settlement of the criminal case during the preliminary investigation stage, constituted gross impropriety. A judge conducting a preliminary investigation acts as an investigating officer and must be circumspect, ensuring that the process is limited to determining probable cause, not brokering settlements that encompass the criminal liability.
The legal logic centers on the standard of judicial conduct requiring probity and the avoidance of any appearance of impropriety. By involving himself in settlement talks that implicitly covered the criminal aspect and by dismissing the case based primarily on the non-appearance of witnesses after he had created an irregular procedural environment, the judge exhibited a lack of due care and adherence to his mandated role. His actions eroded public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. While his dismissal resolution was merely recommendatory to the prosecutor, his overall conduct warranted administrative sanction. The Court modified the investigating judge’s recommendation, imposing a fine of P500.00 and a reprimand with a stern warning, emphasizing that a judge must not only be above reproach but also above suspicion.