G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-97-1115 June 5, 1998
PERLITO D. FLORES, ARLYN H. ARABILLA, DOMINGO RAMIREZ, JORGE BANDALAN, VICENTE ASILOM, MARY JANE VILLEGAS, JOEL DIAZ and ELVIRA VALENZONA, complainants, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO C. SUMALJAG, Acting Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 5, Baybay, Leyte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, all members of the Sangguniang Pambarangay of Domingo C. Veloso in Baybay, Leyte, were charged with three counts of falsification of public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaints alleged they conspired to prepare a spurious Barangay Resolution No. 14, Series of 1996, and a falsified excerpt from minutes of a purported regular session on August 24, 1996, to unduly protest Gualberto Parmis’s land application, falsely stating he was not a resident. Respondent Judge Antonio C. Sumaljag, then Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 5, Baybay, Leyte, conducted a preliminary examination on November 25, 1996, where complainant Parmis and his witness Diego Cala, Jr., testified. Respondent judge thereafter issued warrants of arrest, leading to the complainants’ arrest and subsequent release on bail. Complainants filed this administrative case alleging: (1) the testimonies failed to establish probable cause; (2) in two cases, the complainant was not personally examined, only his witness; (3) in one case, there was an absence of “searching questions and answers” during the preliminary examination; and (4) there was no legal cause to arrest them as barangay officials with remote flight risk. Respondent judge, who had retired on December 13, 1996, defended his actions, claiming procedural compliance and that by posting bail, complainants waived any irregularities.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Antonio C. Sumaljag is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law in conducting the preliminary investigation and issuing the warrants of arrest against the complainants.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable, but not for gross ignorance of the law regarding the conduct of the preliminary examination. The Court held that the respondent’s use of leading questions during the examination of witnesses was justified to elicit details from reticent witnesses and was based on the allegations in the complaints and affidavits. Furthermore, the requirement for a judge to personally examine the complainant in writing and under oath was satisfied, as the complaints were sworn to before the judge. However, the Court found respondent judge liable for ignorance of the law for issuing the warrants of arrest. Under the rules, even after finding probable cause, a judge in a preliminary investigation must exercise discretion to determine if arrest is necessary to prevent frustration of justice. Respondent judge ordered arrest solely on finding probable cause, without considering this necessity. Although respondent had retired, the Court retained jurisdiction. Considering his retirement, the appropriate penalty was a fine of P5,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.