EN BANC
RANDALL-LYON
GARCIA
BUENO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-02-1462
August 10, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE SAIDALI M.
DIMANGADAP,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT,MALABANG, LANAO
DEL SUR,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is an administrative
complaint[1]
dated February 21, 2002 against Judge Saidali M. Dimangadap, Acting
Judge
of the 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Malabang-Sultan
Kumander-Kapatagan-Balabagan,
Lanao del Sur, for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of
discretion
relative to the release of suspects in the thirteen criminal complaints
filed for preliminary investigation.
In a sworn letter-complaint,
P/Ins. Randall-Lyon Garcia Bueno, Chief of Police of Malabang, Lanao
del
Sur, charged respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion for the
release
of the apprehended suspects in thirteen (13) criminal complaints he
filed
in court for preliminary investigation, to wit:
1.
People v. Sayam, Criminal Case No. 2999-M for violation of R.A. No.
6425,
where the accused was released after filing a cash bond of P3,500.00,
however,
no receipt was issued by the Clerk of Court.
2.
People v. Benito, Criminal Case No. 2988 for violation of P.D. No.
1866,
where the accused, who is a brother-in-law of respondent judge was
released
a day after the complaint was filed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
People v. Benito, et al., Criminal Case No. 2989 for violation of R.A.
No. 6425, which was dismissed without hearing a day after the complaint
was filed.
4.
People v. Dima-ampao, Criminal Case No. 2961 for violation of R.A. No.
6425, where the accused was released without bail and “for some
consideration”.
5.
People v. Paco, et al., Criminal Case No. 2959 for violation of R.A.
No.
6425, where the accused were released “for the consideration of
P24,000.00,”
without the knowledge of the Clerk of Court.
6.
People v. Pacaambung, Criminal Case No. 2955 for violation of R.A.
6425,
where the warrant of arrest was issued after four months from the
filing
of the complaint thereby giving the accused chance to be released from
detention and to file counter-charge of frame-up against the police.
7.
People v. Adam, Criminal Case No. 2958 for Theft, dismissed on February
18, 2002 after the wife of the accused submitted an unsubscribed
affidavit
of desistance purportedly executed by the complainant, which bears a
signature
which was different from his signature.
8.
People v. Ansao, et al., Criminal Case No. 2951 for violation of R.A.
No.
6425, all the accused were allowed to post a cash bond in the amount of
P2,500.00 each, but no record exists of the payment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9.
People v. Abedin, Criminal Case No. 2931 for violation of P.D. 1866,
the
accused was released after posting a cash bond of P2,500.00.
10.
People v. Ampuan, et al., Criminal Case No. 2926 for violation of R.A.
No. 6425, the accused were released after posting a cash bond of
P3,000.00.
11.
People v. Adil, et al., Criminal Case No. 2921 for violation of R.A.
No.
6425, where the accused were released after paying a cash bond of
P5,000.00.
12.
People v. Diangka, et al., Criminal Case No. 2897 for violation of R.A.
No. 6425, the accused were released after paying a cash bond of
P3,000.00
each.
13.
People v. Diangka, Criminal Case No. 2912 for violation of R.A. No.
6425,
a second offense, where the accused was released from detention after
being
allowed to post a cash bond of P8,000.00.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his comment,
respondent
judge denied complainant’s charges and claimed that they were false,
fabricated
and unfounded accusations which caused him mental anguish, besmirched
reputation
and sleepless nights.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a resolution[4]
dated November 27, 2002, the complaint was referred to Executive Judge
Valerio M. Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte,
Branch
6, Iligan City for investigation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
In his report to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated May 10, 2003, Judge
Salazar
found that thirteen cases were filed for preliminary investigation, of
which eleven were dismissed on various grounds. However, the
resolutions
and records of the cases were not transmitted to the Office of the
Provincial
Prosecutor, as required under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Further, the cash bonds approved by respondent judge
were
lower than those recommended in the Bail Bond Guide. Moreover,
the
records do not show that official receipts were issued for the said
cash
bonds. In the cases of People v. Sayam, People v. Ansao, et al.
and
People v. Diangka, respondent judge admitted that he personally
received
the cash bonds and that he issued personal receipts therefor.
Judge
Salazar recommended that respondent judge be reprimanded with a strong
warning that a repetition of the same will merit the imposition of a
more
serious sanction.[5]
In its memorandum dated
December 15, 2003, the OCA agrees with the findings of Judge Salazar
that
respondent judge should be held administratively liable; however, it
recommends
that respondent judge be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
all the benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to
re-employment
in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government including
government-owned
or controlled corporations.cralaw:red
Respondent judge failed
to comply with Rule 112, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure,
which specifies the duty of the investigating judge upon conclusion of
the preliminary investigation.cralaw:red
SEC. 5. Resolution
of investigating judge and its review. - Within ten (10) days after the
preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the
resolution
of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman
or
his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, for appropriate action.
The
resolution shall state the findings of facts and the law supporting his
action, together with the record of the case which shall include: (a)
the
warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits,
counter-affidavits
and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or
bail
of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the transcripts of
the
proceedings during the preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of
cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal
of
the complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Within thirty (30) days
from receipt of the records, the provincial or city prosecutor, or the
Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be, shall review the
resolution
of the investigating judge on the existence of probable cause. Their
ruling
shall expressly and clearly state the facts and the law on which it is
based and the parties shall be furnished with copies thereof.
They
shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no probable
cause
is found against him.cralaw:red
Respondent judge’s failure
to transmit the resolutions and records in eleven of the thirteen cases
for preliminary investigation was a disregard of the clear mandate of
the
aforecited provision that it is mandatory for the investigating judge
to
transmit to the provincial or city prosecutor the resolution dismissing
or admitting the complaint, together with the entire records of the
case.cralaw:red
Respondent judge cannot
feign ignorance of this mandatory duty, considering that he transmitted
the resolutions and records in the cases of People v. Ansao and People
v. Dima-ampao to the provincial prosecutor for review.
Indubitably,
the parties adversely affected by the dismissal of the complaints after
preliminary investigation were denied the statutory right of review
that
should have been conducted by the provincial prosecutor.cralaw:red
Respondent judge’s argument
that the provincial prosecutor will dismiss the case anyway for lack of
basis is untenable. Under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure, it is the duty of respondent judge to conduct
preliminary
investigation and thereafter to transmit his findings to the Office of
the Public Prosecutor for further action.cralaw:red
Thus, in Domingo v.
Reyes,[6]
a judge was held administratively liable when he assumed jurisdiction
on
a case filed for preliminary investigation instead of transmitting the
resolution and records to the provincial prosecutor. We held that
“this procedure must be followed regardless of the belief or opinion of
the investigating judge concerning the case.”
Further, respondent
judge violated Section 39, Article X, Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise
known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, which provides
that
“the preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be
terminated
within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing” when
he failed to terminate the preliminary investigations within the period
required by law, as shown by the drug-related cases:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
People v. Ampuan, et al., Criminal Case No. 2926, filed on August 13,
2001
and dismissed on August 26, 2002, or after 378 days;
2)
People v. Pacaambung, Criminal Case No. 2955, filed on October 29, 2001
and dismissed on February 20, 2002, or after 88 days;
3)
People v. Diangka, Criminal Case No. 2912, filed on July 9, 2001 and
dismissed
on September 3, 2001, or after 34 days;
4)
People v. Paco, et al., Criminal Case No. 2959, filed on November 5,
2001
and dismissed on March 4, 2002, or after 119 days;
5)
People v. Dima-ampao, Criminal Case No. 2961, filed on October 21, 2001
and forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor on March 4, 2002, or after
134
days;
6)
People v. Benito, et al., Criminal Case No. 2989, filed on February 4,
2002 and dismissed on May 6, 2002, or after 91 days; and
7)
People v. Ansao, et al., Criminal Case No. 2951, filed on October 22,
2001
and transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor on May 10, 2002, or after
200 days.cralaw:red
Time and again, judges
have been reminded of the need to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously,
for it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied.
Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and
confidence
in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with
dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency
and
warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions on them.[7]
Respondent judge demonstrated
further disregard of the rules or gross ignorance of the same when,
instead
of requiring the accused to deposit the cash bonds with the nearest
collector
of internal revenue, or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer, he
personally
received the same and issued his own personal receipt therefor in the
cases
of People v. Sayam, People v. Ansao, et al. and People v. Diangka, et
al.
Respondent judge’s claim that he personally received the cash bond in
People
v. Sayam because the clerk of court was on leave is belied by the
records
which showed that the complaint was received personally by the clerk of
court, on the same day as the posting of the cash bond.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the foregoing clearly
show respondent judge’s ignorance of the law and the rules. As a
judge, he is the visible representation of law and justice. Under
Canon 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, he is expected to be “the
embodiment
of competence, integrity, and independence” to maintain public
confidence
in the legal system.[8]
Judges are expected to keep abreast of developments in law and
jurisprudence[9]
and is expected to have more than a cursory knowledge of the rules on
preliminary
investigation and bail. Respondent judge’s failure to observe the
basic laws and rules is not only inexcusable, but renders him
susceptible
to administrative sanction for gross ignorance of the law and
incompetence.
Failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the
rules
constitutes gross ignorance of the law from which no one is excused,
and
surely not a judge.[10]
Under Rule 140, Section
8 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, gross
ignorance
of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge.[11]Section 11 of the same Rule provides:
SEC.
11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge,
any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal
from
the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to
any
public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include
accrued
leave credits;
2.
Suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3)
but
not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of
more
than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
The OCA recommends that
respondent judge be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all
the
benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to
re-employment
in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government including
government-owned
or controlled corporations.
We agree. Respondent
judge’s continued adherence to improper procedures on preliminary
investigation
and bail greatly prejudiced the administration of justice, thereby
making
him unworthy to wear the judicial robe.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, respondent Judge Saidali M. Dimangadap, Acting Judge of
the 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Malabang-Sultan
Kumander-Kapatagan-Balabagan,
Lanao del Sur, is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and
procedure
and is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all the benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in
any
branch, agency or instrumentality of the government including
government-owned
or controlled corporations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr., C.J., Puno,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario,
JJ.
, concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 4-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., pp. 33-34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Report and Recommendation dated May 10, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
A.M. No. MTJ-98-1165, 21 June 2001, 308 SCRA 537.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Tierra Firma Estate and Development Corporation v. Quintin, A.M. No.
MTJ-02-1434,
2 July 2002, 383 SCRA 508, 512.
[8]
Morales, Sr. v. Dumlao, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1339, 13 February 2002, 376
SCRA
573, 577-578.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Osumo v. Serrano, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1607, 3 April 2002, 380 SCRA 110, 115.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Guillen v. Cañon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1381, 14 January 2002, 373
SCRA
70, 76.
[11]
Capulong v. Gozum, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1287, 17 February 2003, 397 SCRA
486,
492-493. |