Facts:

The case involves Regional Director Cirilo R. Balagapo, Jr. of the Department of Agriculture, Region VIII, Tacloban City, as the complainant against Judge Demosthenes C. Duquilla, who presided over the Municipal Trial Court in Basey, Samar. The events leading to the complaint unfolded on July 7, 1993, when the Chief of Police of Basey filed a criminal complaint against four individuals—Fred Roa, Philip Bandoy, Aladin Roa, and Aldric Roa—accusing them of violating Section 33 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 704, known as the Fisheries Decree of 1975. This accusation stemmed from an incident where the accused were allegedly engaged in illegal fishing using dynamite in the waters near Basey, Samar, during a seaborne patrol conducted by the "Bantay Dagat Task Force."

Despite the substantial evidence presented to the court, including sworn statements and scientific reports confirming the use of dynamite, Judge Duquilla amended the criminal complaint motu proprio by deletin

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Complainant: Regional Director Cirilo R. Balagapo, Jr. of the Department of Agriculture, Region VIII, Tacloban City.
• Respondent: Judge Demosthenes C. Duquilla of the Municipal Trial Court, Basey, Samar.

Nature of the Complaint

• The complainant filed a formal complaint against Judge Duquilla for exceeding his jurisdiction.
• The complaint centered on the judge’s decision to try Crim. Case No. 8735 on the merits rather than fulfilling his ministerial duty of conducting a preliminary investigation and transmitting the records to the Provincial Prosecutor.
• Specifically, the judge allegedly assumed jurisdiction over an offense punishable by twenty (20) years to life imprisonment (illegal fishing with use of explosive), which should have been limited to preliminary investigation under Sec. 5, Rule 112, of the Amended Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Factual Background of the Case

• Incident Details:
• On 7 July 1993 at about 4:25 p.m., the “Bantay Dagat Task Force,” led by agricultural technologist Noel O. Dapon along with police officers PO3 Rolando O. Banasta and PO3 Dario A. Amante, encountered the accused (Fred Roa, Philip Bandoy, Aladin Roa, and Aldric Roa) fishing using dynamite.
• The task force observed the method described as catching fish using explosive (dynamite) and noted evidence such as confiscated fishing paraphernalia, equipment, dead fish, and fish samples.
• Arrest and Documentary Evidence:
• The accused were arrested and taken to the Basey Police Station.
• Supporting documents included the Scientific Examination Report, Apprehension Report, receipts of confiscated fish, fish samples, and sworn statements from police personnel.
• Allegations in the Complaint:
• The original complaint charged the accused with illegal fishing using explosive, violating Sec. 33, P.D. 704 (Fisheries Decree of 1975).
• The complaint emphasized that the accused conspired to use explosives in the act, an allegation clearly backed by the evidence and witness statements.

The Judge’s Actions and Procedural Irregularities

• Amendment of the Complaint:
• Respondent Judge Duquilla, motu proprio, deleted the allegation of using explosives in the complaint.
• This amendment reduced the severity of the offense from illegal fishing with explosives to illegal fishing only, thereby fitting the case within the limited jurisdiction of his court.
• Subsequent Proceedings:
• The four accused were arraigned and pleaded “Guilty” in the presence of counsel.
• On 22 July 1993, a decision was rendered finding them guilty of illegal fishing, imposing only a fine of P1,000.00 on each.
• After payment of fines, the judge ordered their immediate release, even though the Regional Trial Court later annulled his decision.
• Breach of Procedural Duties:
• The judge failed to transmit the records of the preliminary investigation to the Provincial Prosecutor, as mandated by law.
• His unilateral amendment of the complaint and assumption of jurisdiction were contrary to the designated function of an investigating judge under Rule 112.

Explanations and Justifications Provided by the Judge

• Judge Duquilla argued that his assumption of jurisdiction was based on the police records, particularly the joint sworn statement which he claimed did not specifically allege the use of explosives but mentioned “sprouting water upward.”
• He further noted that an Information had already been filed by the Provincial Fiscal with the Regional Trial Court based on his own earlier order confirming a prima facie case.
• He referenced a prior similar case handled by his predecessor, Judge Felix J. Dacut, in which a much lesser penalty was imposed, seemingly to justify his actions.

Administrative Findings

• A memorandum by Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis found that the charges against Judge Duquilla were sufficiently substantiated.
• The memorandum recommended severe reprimand for altering the complaint designations and for failing to comply with his ministerial duty.

Issue:

Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court

• Whether the Municipal Trial Court had the authority to try the case on the merits, considering it was filed solely for the purpose of a preliminary investigation.
• Whether the nature of the offense—illegal fishing with use of explosive carrying heavier penalties—required the intervention of the appropriate prosecuting agency rather than a trial judge.

Proper Amendment of the Complaint

• Whether a trial judge has the power to amend, motu proprio, the designation of an offense in a complaint originally filed for preliminary investigation.
• Whether such unilateral amendment was proper in altering the gravity and jurisdictional classification of the offense.

Adherence to Procedural Rules Governing Preliminary Investigation

• Whether Judge Duquilla complied with Sec. 5, Rule 112, of the Amended Rules on Criminal Procedure by failing to transmit the case records to the Provincial Prosecutor.
• Whether his actions undermined the ministerial and non-judicial character of a preliminary investigation.

Judicial Misconduct and Integrity

• Whether the amendment of the complaint and proceeding to arraignment and judgment on the merits constituted gross ignorance of law, misconduct, and dishonesty on the part of the investigating judge.
• Whether these actions compromised the integrity and sound administration of criminal justice.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)