G.R. No. MTJ-05-1589; April 26, 2005
ZENAIDA J. CASTRO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE NICASIO V. BARTOLOME, Municipal Trial Court, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Zenaida J. Castro, mother of the accused in criminal cases for rape and violation of R.A. No. 7610 , charged respondent Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome with grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust order, and conduct prejudicial to the service. She alleged that the judge issued a warrant of arrest against her son without conducting a proper preliminary examination involving searching questions and answers, and that the transcript of the proceedings was falsified and only belatedly submitted to the provincial prosecutor. The complainant contended this hasty issuance, influenced by the alleged influential status of the private complainant, caused her son’s unjust detention.
In his defense, Judge Bartolome denied the charges, asserting he personally examined the private complainant with searching questions. He admitted a delay in transmitting the records but attributed this to the clerk of court, arguing it was standard procedure unless the fiscal required the transcript. He maintained that finding probable cause for the arrest warrant did not constitute administrative liability.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the preliminary investigation and the transmittal of records in the criminal cases.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge is administratively liable, but only for undue delay in transmitting the records of the case, not for the more serious charges. The Court, agreeing with the findings of the Investigating Executive Judge, held that Judge Bartolome violated Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule mandates that within ten days after a preliminary investigation, the judge must transmit the resolution and the entire records, including the transcript of stenographic notes, to the prosecutor.
The respondent’s claim that delayed transmittal was a clerical matter or “standard operating procedure” was untenable. The duty to ensure the prompt transmittal of complete records rests squarely on the judge. His failure to do so constituted undue delay, a less serious charge under the Rules of Court. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the grave charges of issuing an unjust warrant, falsification, or misconduct. The Investigating Judge found no proof the transcript was doctored, and the immediate finding of probable cause for arrest, by itself, was not a ground for administrative sanction absent proof of arbitrariness.
Considering the violation and the respondent’s prior administrative sanction for making untruthful statements, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and issued a stern warning.