AM 93 773; (September, 1996) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-93-773. September 3, 1996. ATTY. JOSE A. BERSALES, complainant, vs. JUDGE DIOSDADO C. ARRIESGADO, respondent.
FACTS
Atty. Jose A. Bersales charged Judge Diosdado C. Arriesgado of the Municipal Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s issuance of a warrant of arrest against Bersales in Criminal Case No. 4259 for Falsification of Public Document. The criminal case was filed by the Chief of Police, alleging that Bersales and his client filed a falsified verified complaint in an administrative case (A.M. No. RTJ-93-951) against another judge, Judge Camilo E. Tamin. Based on the criminal complaint, Judge Arriesgado issued the warrant, leading to Bersales’ arrest and detention.
The administrative case filed by Bersales against Judge Tamin and the criminal complaint filed against Bersales involved the same factual issue: whether a court proceeding occurred on a specific date. The Provincial Prosecutor later dismissed the criminal case, noting the absence of a specific falsified public document and that the factual issue was still pending in the administrative case. An investigating judge found that while Judge Arriesgado did not commit gross ignorance, he acted hastily, as there was no necessity for immediate custody.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Arriesgado committed an infraction warranting disciplinary action in issuing the warrant of arrest against Atty. Bersales.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Arriesgado and warned him that similar future acts would merit a more severe penalty. The Court found the issuance of the warrant unfortunate and demonstrative of a lack of sound judgment. Legally, the judge failed to properly exercise his discretion under Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. A finding of probable cause does not automatically mandate an arrest warrant; the judge must also determine a necessity for immediate custody to prevent frustration of justice. No such expediency existed here, as Bersales was a practicing lawyer with a known office, posing no flight risk.
Furthermore, the judge displayed poor judgment by not deferring to the pending administrative case involving the identical factual dispute. The Court emphasized that preliminary investigations aim to protect the innocent from hasty prosecution. By issuing the warrant without the requisite finding of necessity and despite the parallel administrative proceeding, Judge Arriesgado failed to act with the prudence and circumspection required of his office, causing Bersales unnecessary distress and inconvenience. His actions, while not amounting to gross ignorance, constituted a failure to observe proper judicial care.