AM RTJ 18 2523; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-18-2523. June 6, 2018.
EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., represented by ATTY. ROMMEL V. OLIVA, Complainant, vs. HON. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Extra Excel International Philippines, Inc. filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Afable E. Cajigal for gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, grave abuse of authority, and evident partiality concerning Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-00488-CR for qualified theft. The complainant alleged that after the information was filed, the judge improperly granted the accused’s Motion for Preliminary Investigation and Motion to Defer Further Proceedings, an act later found by the Court of Appeals to constitute grave abuse of discretion. The judge also failed to resolve a Motion for Issuance of a Hold Departure Order for over nine months. Furthermore, after the accused’s arraignment for a non-bailable offense, the judge allowed him to go home without commitment. The judge then proceeded with a bail hearing despite counsel’s unavailability, granted bail, and denied a motion for inhibition. The complainant also cited the judge’s attempt to fast-track proceedings by rescheduling hearings due to his impending retirement.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Afable E. Cajigal is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross inefficiency based on the alleged irregularities in handling the criminal case.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross inefficiency. The legal logic is anchored on the judge’s failure to adhere to fundamental rules and established jurisprudence. First, his grant of a motion for preliminary investigation for an accused not arrested without a warrant or subjected to inquest proceedings violated A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, which mandates arraignment upon the lapse of a 60-day period for preliminary investigation. This constituted gross ignorance of a basic and elementary rule. Second, his failure to resolve the motion for a hold departure order for an excessive period constituted gross inefficiency, violating the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Court rejected his justification that it was set alongside other motions, as each motion requires prompt resolution.
Regarding the bail proceedings, the Court found the grant of bail procedurally flawed. The accused was not in lawful custody when the petition was filed, as custody is a prerequisite for a bail application. The judge’s act of allowing the accused to go home after arraignment for a non-bailable offense, and later granting bail without the accused being in proper custody, demonstrated a disregard for procedural rules. While the Court considered the judge’s impending retirement and prior service, it imposed a fine of ₱20,000.00, deductible from his retirement benefits, as a fitting penalty for the infractions that undermined the integrity of the judicial process.