G.R. No. MTJ 01-1371. September 20, 2001
ATTY. NESCITO C. HILARIO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROMEO A. QUILANTANG, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Obando, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Nescito Hilario, Chairman of the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Obando, Bulacan, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Romeo Quilantang for gross neglect and dereliction of duty. The complaint arose from the judge’s handling of criminal cases for grave threats and illegal possession of firearms against Reynaldo Marquez. The complainant alleged that on July 3, 1995, the judge actively facilitated the dismissal of the grave threats case by having the victim, Jonathan dela Cruz, sign an affidavit of desistance written in English, a language dela Cruz did not understand, after urging him to drop the case and giving him money.
Regarding the illegal possession charge, the judge ordered Marquez’s release on the same day, citing weak evidence based on an affidavit from arresting policemen that the gun was found in a tricycle, not on Marquez’s person. The judge ordered the gun sent for verification but complainant asserted it was never examined. Complainant argued the judge failed to conduct a proper preliminary investigation, did not reconcile conflicting affidavits with the police blotter, and ignored that Marquez’s gun possession during a COMELEC gun ban constituted a probable election law violation beyond the judge’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Romeo Quilantang is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and dereliction of duty in his handling of the preliminary investigation and dismissal of the criminal cases against Reynaldo Marquez.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, imposing a fine of P20,000. The Court emphasized that a judge’s duty in preliminary investigation is not merely clerical but requires a judicious determination of probable cause. The judge exhibited gross ignorance by dismissing the grave threats case based solely on an affidavit of desistance obtained under questionable circumstances, without conducting a searching inquiry into its voluntariness, especially given the victim’s lack of English comprehension. This failure violated the judicial standard of care.
Furthermore, the judge neglected his duty in the illegal possession case. He hastily ordered the accused’s release based on a conflicting police affidavit without examining the official police blotter or other evidence to resolve discrepancies. His failure to ensure the firearm was actually forwarded for expert examination, as he had ordered, demonstrated a lack of diligence. The Court ruled that these acts constituted gross ignorance of basic procedural rules governing preliminary investigations. While not all judicial errors warrant administrative sanction, respondent’s patent disregard of fundamental duties, which undermined public confidence in the judicial process, merited disciplinary action.