A.M. No. MTJ-93-749 February 7, 1994
MAYOR SOTERO C. CANTELA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RAFAEL S. ALMORADIE, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mayor Sotero C. Cantela filed a sworn complaint charging respondent Judge Rafael S. Almoradie of the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Fernando-Batuan, Masbate, with “Malpractice and Grave Abuse of Authority Amounting to Ignorance of the Law.” The charge was based on the respondent judge’s practice of archiving criminal cases after conducting preliminary investigations, instead of forwarding the records to the Provincial Prosecutor as required by the Rules of Court. Specific criminal cases cited included violations of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), Frustrated Murder, Attempted Rape, Murder, and others. Respondent judge admitted to archiving the cases after the failure to arrest the accused, justifying it by his belief that keeping the cases within his jurisdiction would make it easier to issue alias warrants of arrest. He claimed the complaint was politically motivated, as the complainant was his former political rival. The Office of the Court Administrator found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law, noting that despite being advised by an RTC Executive Judge and an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor about the irregularity of his practice, he persisted.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rafael S. Almoradie is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for archiving criminal cases after preliminary investigation instead of transmitting the records to the Provincial Prosecutor as mandated by Rule 112, Sections 5 and 6 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Rafael S. Almoradie guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Court emphasized that under Rule 112, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, it is the mandatory duty of an investigating judge to transmit the resolution and entire records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal (prosecutor) within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. The respondent judge’s practice of archiving the cases, upon the pretext that it would be easier to issue alias warrants of arrest, constituted a flagrant violation of this rule and a grave abuse of authority. His stubborn adherence to this wrong procedure, despite having his attention called to it by a prosecutor and an RTC Executive Judge, demonstrated gross incompetence and unfitness for judicial office. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Judge from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any government position and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits.