G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-92-6-251. February 7, 1994.
JUDGE EMERITO M. AGCAOILI, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE O. RAMOS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ECHAGUE, ISABELA, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a letter dated May 13, 1992, by Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Aparri, Cagayan, reporting the inordinate delay of respondent Judge Jose O. Ramos of the Municipal Trial Court of Echague, Isabela, in conducting the preliminary investigation of Crim. Case No. 24-0331 (People v. Jessie Opulencia, et al., for Homicide). The letter also noted respondent Judge’s inaction in three other criminal cases: Crim. Case Nos. 24-0289, 24-0301, and 24-0311. The Court treated the letter as an administrative complaint and required Judge Ramos to answer. In his answer, respondent Judge admitted the charges but offered explanations: for Crim. Case No. 24-0331, he claimed the delay was due to his efforts as a “practicing Christian” to persuade the parties to settle the civil aspect; for the other cases, he blamed the negligence of his former Clerk of Court, Rodolfo F. Acosta, who allegedly kept the records in his cabinet without informing the Judge, and the records were only discovered after Acosta’s retirement on February 15, 1990. The Court designated Judge Artemio R. Alivia to investigate. Judge Alivia’s report found the following:
1. In Crim. Case No. 24-0287 (People v. Santiago Ayap for Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence), filed May 15, 1987, respondent Judge took no action for three years, six months, and thirteen days until issuing a resolution on December 27, 1990.
2. In Crim. Case No. 24-0301 (People v. Mauro Bacud for Theft), filed June 2, 1986, no action was taken for four years, nine months, and twelve days until a resolution was issued on March 14, 1991.
3. In Crim. Case No. 24-0311 (People v. Eduardo Guillermo for Acts of Lasciviousness), filed January 9, 1986, no action was taken for five years, seven months, and four days until a resolution was issued on August 13, 1991.
4. In Crim. Case No. 24-0331 (People v. Jessie Opulencia, et al. for Homicide), the complaint was actually filed on December 5, 1986, but respondent Judge altered the date to October 26, 1987. He took more than three years to act, issuing a resolution only on November 18, 1991. The Investigating Judge found that respondent Judge violated Rule 112 of the Amended Rules on Criminal Procedure, which mandates resolution within ten days after the preliminary investigation is concluded.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose O. Ramos is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and serious misconduct due to his inordinate delay in conducting preliminary investigations and falsification of court records.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty as charged. The Court sustained the findings of the Investigating Judge. Respondent Judge violated Section 3, Rule 112 of the Amended Rules on Criminal Procedure, which requires the investigating officer to resolve the case within ten days from the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. His failure to comply with this elementary legal duty constitutes gross ignorance of the law. His excuse of negligence by his former Clerk of Court is untenable, as a judge is responsible for proper court management and cannot evade duty by blaming court personnel. The unreasonable delays in the four criminal cases, ranging from over three to nearly six years, amount to dereliction of duty and serious misconduct, prejudicing the judicial system by causing loss of evidence and denial of justice. Aggravating this misconduct, respondent Judge falsified the record in Crim. Case No. 24-0331 by altering the filing date to conceal the delay. Consequently, the Court DISMISSED respondent Judge Jose O. Ramos from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or corporation.