AM 93 850; (October, 1996) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-93-850 October 2, 1996
Roberto “Amang” Carpio, Angel Reyes and Erlinda Lata Salonga, complainants, vs. Judge Rodolfo R. De Guzman, Remedios Viesca and Jaime Dela Cruz, respondents.
FACTS
Complainants, who were the accused in Criminal Case No. 46-93 for Malicious Mischief before the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, charged respondent Judge Rodolfo R. De Guzman, among others, with abuse of authority and grave misconduct. They alleged the judge disregarded the Rules of Court by immediately issuing a warrant for their arrest without giving them a chance to know the accusations or to be confronted by the complainant and witnesses. They further claimed the judge and his clerk of court refused to furnish them copies of the pertinent case records.
The case was referred for investigation. The Executive Judge found that on May 31, 1993, upon the filing of the criminal complaint, respondent Judge De Guzman immediately issued warrants of arrest and fixed bail without first requiring the accused to submit counter-affidavits. He admitted during the investigation that he did not determine whether the case fell under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure before issuing the warrant.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Rodolfo R. De Guzman is administratively liable for his actions in handling Criminal Case No. 46-93.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that the judge committed a serious procedural error. The charge of Malicious Mischief, where the alleged damage was valued at P1,200.00, was punishable by arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, thus falling under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. These rules explicitly prohibit the court from ordering the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear when required. Instead of issuing a warrant, the judge should have first issued an order requiring the accused to submit their counter-affidavits.
The Court held that the judge’s failure to make a preliminary determination of the applicable procedure, as mandated by the rules, and his immediate issuance of a warrant of arrest constituted gross ignorance of the law. A judge is expected to keep abreast of basic legal principles and procedural rules. His admission of error does not exonerate him from administrative liability. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one-half of his monthly salary. The charges against the other respondents were dismissed for lack of evidence.