G.R. No. MTJ-94-1009. March 5, 1996.
ALBERTO NALDOZA, complainant, vs. JUDGE JUAN LAVILLES, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alberto Naldoza, a barangay chairman, was charged with vote-buying before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Miagao, Iloilo, presided by respondent Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr. The complaints were filed by the Chief of Police on May 8, 1994. On May 10, 1994, after examining the sworn statements of the complainants taken by the police, respondent judge found probable cause and issued warrants for Naldoza’s arrest, setting bail. Naldoza was arrested and detained. The following day, the judge issued an order directing Naldoza to submit his counter-affidavit, invoking Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
Naldoza filed a motion to quash, arguing irregular preliminary investigation and improper issuance of the warrants. The judge denied the motion on May 31, 1994, initially referring the cases to the COMELEC, but then reconsidered on June 6, 1994, and instead remanded them to the Chief of Police. The warrants were lifted and Naldoza was ordered released. Naldoza subsequently filed this administrative complaint through the Commission on Human Rights, charging respondent with irregular preliminary investigation, improper issuance of warrants, and ignorance of the law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Juan Lavilles, Jr. is administratively liable for irregularities in conducting the preliminary investigation and for issuing the warrants of arrest in the vote-buying cases against complainant.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his actions tainted with irregularities and a lack of mastery of applicable laws and procedures. First, the offense of vote-buying under the Omnibus Election Code falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and its preliminary investigation is vested with the COMELEC, not the MTC. Respondent demonstrated confusion by initially asserting jurisdiction, then ordering a preliminary investigation under Rule 112, and later referring the case to the COMELEC and then to the police.
Second, his issuance of the arrest warrants was improper. A judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses, not merely rely on sworn statements already taken by the police. His failure to conduct a proper preliminary examination before issuing the warrants deprived the complainant of due process and led to his unjust detention. Furthermore, respondent showed ignorance of COMELEC Resolution No. 2695, which outlines the proper procedure for preliminary examination of election offenses by the police. While he claimed recent issuance, a judge is duty-bound to keep abreast of all pertinent laws and circulars.
The Court emphasized that judges must exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Respondent’s series of contradictory orders and failure to properly apply the law constituted gross ignorance of the law and procedure. Considering the absence of malice but the presence of negligence, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning.