G.R. No. MTJ-94-936 November 6, 1995
MAYOR SALVADOR M. PEREZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE HILARION A. SULLER, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mayor Salvador M. Perez accused Judge Hilarion A. Suller of grave abuse of discretion and misconduct concerning Criminal Case No. SM-7962 for qualified trespass to dwelling, where the accused were the mayor’s sons. The mayor alleged that Judge Suller conducted the preliminary investigation and issued a warrant of arrest on the same day the complaint was filed, without requiring the accused to submit their counter-affidavits. He further claimed the judge purposely left his station the next day to thwart the accused’s opportunity to post bail. The complainant also stressed that the complaining witness, Cristobal Suller, Jr., was the judge’s nephew.
In his comment, respondent judge defended issuing the warrant based on his finding of probable cause, citing Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. He denied being absent from his station, supported by sworn statements from court staff. However, his comment was conspicuously silent regarding his alleged familial relationship with the complaining witness.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether a judge must first require the submission of counter-affidavits from the accused before issuing a warrant of arrest during a preliminary investigation; and (2) whether it was proper for the judge to conduct the investigation and order the arrest given his relationship to the complaining witness.

RULING

On the first issue, the Court ruled there was no irregularity in the warrant’s issuance. Citing Pangandaman v. Casar, the Court clarified that completing the entire preliminary investigation procedure is not a prerequisite for issuing a warrant of arrest. Under Section 6(b), Rule 112, a municipal trial judge may issue a warrant if satisfied, after examining the complainant and witnesses, that probable cause exists and there is a necessity to place the respondent under immediate custody. Therefore, Judge Suller was not required to first obtain the accused’s counter-affidavits.
On the second issue, the Court found Judge Suller administratively liable. His silence on the allegation that the complaining witness was his nephew was deemed an admission. The Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 3.12, and Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, mandate that a judge must not participate in a proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including cases where they are related to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity. By conducting the preliminary investigation involving his nephew, Judge Suller violated these rules and exhibited impropriety warranting disciplinary action.