A.M. No. RTJ-93-964; February 28, 1996
Leovigildo U. Mantaring, complainant, vs. Judge Manuel A. Roman, Jr., and Judge Ireneo B. Molato, respondents.

FACTS

This is a supplemental administrative complaint against Judge Ireneo B. Molato for alleged harassment. Complainant Leovigildo Mantaring had previously filed an administrative case against Judge Molato, which was dismissed. Subsequently, based on a search warrant issued against Joel Gamo and Mantaring’s son, firearms were seized from a house. A criminal complaint for illegal possession was then filed, implicating both Mantaring and his son. Judge Molato conducted the preliminary investigation, found probable cause against them, and issued warrants for their arrest.
Complainant alleges that Judge Molato, motivated by revenge for the earlier administrative case, wrongfully ordered his arrest despite his name not being on the original search warrant and despite his claim of being in Manila and not owning the searched house. He contends the judge should have inhibited himself. The criminal case was later dismissed by the provincial prosecutor, who noted the Mantarings suffered prejudice due to the judge’s lack of prudence.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Ireneo B. Molato is administratively liable for his actions in conducting the preliminary investigation and issuing the warrant of arrest against the complainant.

RULING

Yes, but only for a specific lapse in judicial conduct. The Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, found the core charge of issuing the arrest warrant out of harassment to be unsubstantiated. The determination of probable cause for an arrest is distinct from that for a search warrant; a judge can find probable cause against a person not named in a search warrant based on evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. An error in finding probable cause, absent proof of malice, is a judicial error correctable by judicial remedies, not an administrative offense.
However, the Court found Judge Molato administratively liable for failing to properly observe the duty to inhibit. Given that the complainant had previously filed an administrative case against him, the judge should have voluntarily inhibited himself from conducting the preliminary investigation to avoid any appearance of bias and to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. His failure to do so constituted impropriety. Furthermore, the Court noted that in issuing the warrant of arrest, the judge focused solely on probable cause and omitted consideration of the equally mandatory requirement under the Rules of Court that there must be a necessity to place the accused in custody to prevent frustration of justice. This oversight demonstrated a lack of judicial circumspection.
Consequently, Judge Ireneo B. Molato was REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. All other charges were dismissed for lack of merit.