AM MTJ 06 1645; (August, 2007) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-06-1645; August 28, 2007
IN RE: SANDRA L. MINO v. JUDGE DONATO SOTERO A. NAVARRO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 6, CEBU CITY
FACTS
Complainant Sandra Mino charged respondent Judge Donato Sotero A. Navarro with gross inexcusable negligence for failing to issue a warrant of arrest within the period prescribed by the Rules in Criminal Case No. 124511-R for Attempted Homicide. The case was raffled to his sala on October 21, 2003. Instead of issuing a warrant, respondent, after 97 days, issued an Order dated February 5, 2004, downgrading the charge to Grave Threats and remanding the case to the City Prosecutor for amendment of the Information, finding no probable cause for intent to kill. The prosecution filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition, arguing the judge had no authority to conduct his own preliminary investigation and that the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause was final absent an appeal. Respondent took 87 days to issue an Order on June 3, 2004, refuting the prosecution’s arguments but recusing himself and ordering the case re-raffled.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Navarro is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and undue delay. Under Rule 112, Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence within ten days from the filing of the information. The judge’s role is to determine only the existence of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, not to review the prosecutor’s discretion to determine the proper offense or to conduct a preliminary investigation. By downgrading the charge from Attempted Homicide to Grave Threats and remanding the case for amendment, respondent arrogated the prosecutor’s investigatory function, a clear misapprehension of judicial authority. His failure to act on the case within the prescribed 10-day period and his 87-day delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration constituted undue delay, violating the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. Considering his previous administrative sanctions, the Court suspended him for six months without salary for gross ignorance of the law and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000) for unjust delay, with a stern warning.