PACIFICO BERSO, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ALBEN C. RABE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 15, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TABACO CITY, ALBAY, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant Pacifico Berso, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alben C. Rabe, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Tabaco City, Albay, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to three criminal cases for rape filed against Ronnel Borromeo, involving Berso’s minor daughter. The cases were raffled to Judge Rabe’s branch. Borromeo filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and to Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest. Judge Rabe conducted hearings where the victim and the accused testified and were cross-examined. In an Order dated June 1, 2016, Judge Rabe dismissed all three cases for want of probable cause. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) challenged these orders via a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated February 10, 2017, the CA annulled Judge Rabe’s orders, finding he acted with grave abuse of discretion by conducting a full-blown trial under the guise of a clarificatory hearing to determine probable cause and by holding no probable cause existed despite overwhelming evidence. The CA decision became final. Berso alleged that despite the finality of the CA decision, Judge Rabe refused to issue a warrant of arrest against Borromeo, instead setting the case for presentation of witnesses. The prosecution filed motions, including a Motion to Inhibit and a Motion for Immediate Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, which Judge Rabe denied. Berso claimed Judge Rabe’s actions showed partiality, ignorance of the law, and gross misconduct for deliberate disobedience to the CA’s lawful order. In his Comment, Judge Rabe insisted the determination of probable cause for a warrant rested on his sound discretion and that the CA decision did not command him to immediately issue a warrant. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Rabe guilty of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, recommending a fine for gross misconduct and dismissal from service for gross ignorance of the law.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Judge Rabe is liable for gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge Rabe is liable for gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct. The Court adopted with modification the OCA’s findings and recommendations.
Gross Ignorance of the Law: The Court found Judge Rabe guilty of gross ignorance of the law. He disregarded basic rules and settled jurisprudence. The determination of probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest is a summary proceeding, not a full-blown trial. Judge Rabe deviated from proper procedure by: (1) conducting a clarificatory hearing that resembled a trial, requiring the victim to testify and undergo vigorous cross-examination; (2) calling the accused to testify and raise defenses not in his counter-affidavit; and (3) allowing the accused to present unauthenticated private documents without giving the prosecution a chance to controvert them. His actions constituted a blatant disregard of straightforward legal provisions and Supreme Court circulars. His unfamiliarity with fundamental rules was a sign of incompetence that betrayed public confidence in the courts.
Gross Misconduct: The Court also found Judge Rabe guilty of gross misconduct. His continued refusal to issue an arrest warrant after the CA’s final and executory decision, and his insistence on conducting further hearings to re-determine probable cause, demonstrated manifest bias and partiality in favor of the accused. This violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to perform their duties with impartiality. His actions constituted a conscious and intentional disregard of his judicial duties and the lawful order of a higher court.
Penalty: For gross ignorance of the law, a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. For gross misconduct, also a serious charge, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00). The Court emphasized that a judge who passes upon the guilt of an accused during a probable cause determination and exhibits manifest bias is unfit for the Judiciary.
