Facts:

In the case of Warlito Alisangco v. Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., decided on June 30, 1993, Warlito Alisangco filed a sworn letter-complaint against Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., who served in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Manukan-Jose Dalman in Zamboanga del Norte. The complaint, submitted on May 9, 1991, alleged grave abuse of authority, ignorance of the law, and conduct unbecoming of a judge. The complainant contended that after an amended complaint was filed against him in Criminal Case No. 147, regarding a violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 533, the respondent judge swiftly issued a warrant for his arrest without first verifying Alisangco's participation in the offense. Additionally, Alisangco criticized the bail amount set by Judge Tabiliran at P 20,000.00, claiming it was excessively high given that the carabao's value in question was only P 7,000.00.

Upon subsequently posting a cash bond with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City,

...

Facts:

Background and Procedural History

• Complainant Warlito Alisangco filed a sworn letter-complaint dated 9 May 1991 addressed to the Chief Justice.
• He charged Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Manukan-Jose Dalman, Zamboanga del Norte, with grave abuse of authority, ignorance of the law, and conduct unbecoming of a presiding judge.

Alleged Misconduct and Initial Acts

• The complaint arose after the Station Commander of Jose Dalman filed an Amended Complaint in Criminal Case No. 147 (for the violation of Presidential Decree [P.D.] No. 533 – the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974), which included Alisangco as one of the accused.
• Judge Tabiliran, in whose sala the case was pending, promptly issued a warrant for Alisangco’s arrest without first determining his participation in the alleged offense.
• The judge set a bail bond at ₱20,000.00, which the complainant argued was excessive considering that the carabao involved had an assessed value of only ₱7,000.00.

Proceedings on Waiver of Preliminary Investigation

• After posting a cash bond with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, Alisangco was served with a subpoena directing him to appear on 21 February 1991 for arraignment and preliminary investigation.
• Alisangco did not appear on the scheduled date because he had already filed a waiver of his right to a preliminary investigation on 20 February 1991.
• Subsequent to his non-appearance, Judge Tabiliran issued an order directing the Station Commander to arrest Alisangco and compelled him to show cause why his bond should not be confiscated.
• Before the arrest could be effected in Dipolog City, counsel intervened via a motion to lift the order of arrest; however, the respondent judge failed to act on the said motion.

Respondent Judge’s Comment and Denials

• On 12 December 1991, the Supreme Court ordered the respondent to comment on the letter-complaint.
• In his Comment dated 30 January 1992, Judge Tabiliran denied the accusations and claimed:
• The filing of the amended complaint was proper under Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, and the preliminary investigation had been duly conducted.
• He personally examined the complainant and witnesses, and noted that Alisangco admitted financing the purchase of carabaos for Rodolfo Obelle.
• Alleging that Alisangco purchased a stolen carabao, he maintained that the relevant charge should be under P.D. No. 1612 (erroneously labeled as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1979 instead of its correct title—the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979).
• The waiver of preliminary investigation was not filed in the proper venue (i.e., not in the MCTC of Manukan on 20 February 1991) but rather at the residence or office of Clerk Maria Blyth Abadilla, who is both a relative and neighbor of the complainant.
• Furthermore, he alleged that the complainant was involved in a scheme to frame him, linking the matter to an earlier case (Adm. Matter No. P-91-597) against Abadilla.

Investigation and Findings by the RTC

• In compliance with a Supreme Court Resolution dated 17 March 1992, Alisangco filed a reply to Judge Tabiliran’s Comment on 18 June 1992.
• The case was referred on 12 November 1992 to Executive Judge Jesus O. Angeles of Branch 7, RTC Dipolog City, to investigate factual issues—chiefly whether the waiver was indeed filed on 20 February 1991 and other associated irregularities.
• Judge Angeles, through the testimonies of:
• Court Interpreter Bernard A. Letran
• Court Stenographer Vivencia A. Retes

established that:

Memorandum and Administrative Findings

• On 11 May 1993, the Office of the Court Administrator issued a memorandum, highlighting that:
• The right to a preliminary investigation is personal and may be waived expressly or impliedly.
• An accused’s waiver frees him from the obligatory attendance at the preliminary investigation, and the court is not compelled to proceed with the hearing.
• The memorandum concluded that:
• Judge Tabiliran abused his discretion by ordering Alisangco’s arrest despite the clear waiver.
• His justification of not having knowledge of the waiver was untenable, given that evidence suggested he was, or should have been, aware of Alisangco’s express waiver.
• It also noted:
• The impropriety in designating the charge under the incorrect presidential decree (mixing P.D. No. 533 with erroneous references to P.D. No. 1612).
• The error in conducting an arraignment over which the MCTC had no jurisdiction, as it only held preliminary jurisdiction—not trial jurisdiction which belongs to the RTC based on the prescribed penalties.
• The memorandum recommended that, considering this was the respondent’s first offense of this nature, he should be reprimanded and warned, though it admitted that a graver sanction might be warranted given the circumstances.

Final Disposition

• The Supreme Court found the factual findings and conclusions of the Office of the Court Administrator to be proper.
• However, the Court determined that the penalty recommended was too lenient in light of the gravity of the offense.
• Consequently, for ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority:
• Judge Tabiliran was sentenced to pay a fine of ₱5,000.00.
• He was warned that any repetition of similar acts would invoke more severe sanctions.

Issue:

• Whether the waiver of the preliminary investigation, filed by the complainant on 20 February 1991, was properly effected and should have precluded further procedural actions requiring his presence.

Whether Judge Tabiliran abused his discretion and acted arbitrarily by:

• Issuing a warrant for the arrest of the complainant despite his express waiver of the preliminary investigation.
• Ordering the confiscation of the complainant's bond despite the waiver and posting of bail.
• Whether the respondent judge’s handling of the case, particularly his erroneous application of a different presidential decree (P.D. No. 1612 instead of P.D. No. 533) and the improper setting for arraignment, demonstrated ignorance of the law or deliberate misconduct.
• Whether the procedural irregularities, including the incorrect venue for the waiver’s filing and the subsequent failure to properly verify its attachment to the case records, contributed to a grave abuse of judicial authority.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)