AM 95 1051; (October, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-95-1051 October 21, 1996
Exec. Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili vs. Judge Briccio A. Aquino
FACTS
Executive Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili charged Judge Briccio A. Aquino, Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran, Cagayan, with serious neglect of duty, gross ignorance of the law, and insubordination. The complaint stemmed from Judge Aquino’s failure to file an explanation regarding his handling of Criminal Case Nos. 3246 and 3247 for rape and his procedural delays. A judicial audit revealed that a criminal complaint was filed on December 18, 1992. Judge Aquino conducted a preliminary examination and issued a warrant of arrest on January 20, 1993. After the accused could not be located, the case was archived on January 20, 1994. The records were finally transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor on March 3, 1994, over fifteen months after the complaint was filed.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Briccio A. Aquino is administratively liable for neglect of duty and ignorance of the law for his failure to promptly transmit the case records after preliminary investigation and for his disregard of a superior judge’s directive.
RULING
Yes, Judge Aquino is administratively liable. The Court found that Judge Aquino violated Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the transmittal of case records to the prosecutor within ten days after concluding a preliminary investigation. His justification for archiving the case due to the accused’s absence was legally untenable. Under Section 1(d), Rule 112, if a respondent cannot be subpoenaed, the investigating officer must resolve the case based on the complainant’s evidence; archiving was not the prescribed procedure. This demonstrated a failure to follow elementary procedural rules, constituting gross ignorance of the law.
Furthermore, Judge Aquino’s failure to comply with Executive Judge Agcaoili’s directive to explain his actions constituted insubordination and a disregard for judicial hierarchy. The Court emphasized that judges must possess more than a cursory knowledge of procedural rules to ensure the speedy administration of justice. For these infractions, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.