Case Digest (Adm. Matter No. 43-MJ)
Facts:
The case involves Atty. J. Bautista Rabago as the complainant against Hon. Alfonso Calsena, the Municipal Judge of Victorias, Negros Occidental. The administrative complaint was filed on November 29, 1973, concerning three complaints for qualified trespass to dwelling that were lodged with the Municipal Court of Victorias on September 5, 1972. The complaints were filed on behalf of Albina de la Pena (Criminal Case No. 2353), Meliza Diamante (Criminal Case No. 2354), and Soledad Hilado (Criminal Case No. 2355) against several individuals, including Mario Ditching and Leticia J. Ditching. The complaints alleged that the respondent judge exhibited gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, gross partiality, and evasion of duty. Specifically, the judge failed to issue warrants of arrest after conducting a preliminary examination and instead ordered further evidence to determine the existence of a prima facie case. The judge was accused of showing partiality by not issuing warrants...
Case Digest (Adm. Matter No. 43-MJ)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Complainant: Atty. J. Bautista Rabago, representing Albina de la Pena, Meliza Diamante, and Soledad Hilado.
- Respondent: Hon. Alfonso Calsena, Municipal Judge of Victorias, Negros Occidental.
Criminal Cases Filed:
- Three complaints for qualified trespass to dwelling were filed on September 5, 1972, against Mario Ditching, Leticia J. Ditching, Juan de la Pena, Maximo Ferrer, Jr., Godofredo Ledesma, Serafin Dimatugue, Narsanito Seduco y Jostiliana, Alberto Lagrimas, and one John Doe.
Allegations Against Respondent Judge:
- Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence: Respondent Judge failed to issue warrants of arrest after a preliminary examination, instead ordering further evidence to determine prima facie cause.
- Gross Partiality: Respondent allegedly favored the accused by refusing to issue warrants of arrest.
- Evasion of Duty: Respondent referred the cases to Judge Sixto Guanzon without notice to the complainants, leading to their dismissal.
Respondent’s Defense:
- Respondent claimed that six prosecution witnesses did not submit affidavits or testify, making it necessary to order further evidence.
- He cited Section 87, paragraph 3, of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by Republic Act No. 3828, which requires a personal examination of witnesses under oath in writing.
- Respondent also inhibited himself due to a familial relationship with one of the accused (Atty. Mario A. Ditching, his brother-in-law).
Procedural History:
- The cases were referred to Judge Sixto Guanzon, who dismissed them after the prosecution failed to present additional evidence.
- Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, agreeing to present additional evidence, but the cases were ultimately endorsed to the Provincial Fiscal.
Investigation:
- The administrative complaint was investigated by Judge Oscar R. Victoriano, who found no sufficient evidence to support the charges but recommended admonishing respondent for procedural lapses.
Issue:
Whether respondent Judge Alfonso Calsena is guilty of:
- Gross ignorance of the law and incompetence for failing to issue warrants of arrest.
- Gross partiality for allegedly favoring the accused.
- Evasion of duty for referring the cases to another judge without notice.
Whether respondent Judge complied with the procedural requirements for preliminary examinations under Section 87, paragraph 3, of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.
Whether respondent Judge’s inhibition was justified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Investigating Judge’s recommendation, exonerating respondent Judge Alfonso Calsena but admonishing him to strictly comply with procedural rules in the future.