Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1598)
Facts:
This administrative case involves a complaint filed on September 17, 2001, against Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas of the Municipal Trial Court of Dasmariñas, Cavite. The complainants, Leonora Bitoon, Florencio Cantada, Anita Mendoza, Cael Glorioso, and Atty. Miriam S. Clorina-Rentoy, accused the respondent of gross ignorance of the law, manifest bias and partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The events leading to the complaint began on August 23, 2001, when the complainants filed three criminal complaints (Criminal Cases Nos. 01-1485, 01-1486, and 01-1487) against several individuals, including Eva Malihan, for syndicated estafa. The complainants alleged that the accused misrepresented themselves as officers of the Rapasedala Parents and Community Association, inducing the complainants to purchase lots that were not owned by the association. After paying several installments, the complainants discovered the fraud.
On August 24, 2001, Judge ...
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1598)
Facts:
- Filing of Criminal Complaints: On August 23, 2001, complainants Leonora Bitoon, Florencio Cantada, Anita Mendoza, and Cael Glorioso filed three criminal complaints for syndicated estafa under Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1689, against Eva Malihan and others. The accused allegedly misrepresented themselves as officers of the Rapasedala Parents and Community Association, inducing complainants to buy non-existent lands.
- Arrest of Eva Malihan: On August 24, 2001, respondent Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas issued a warrant of arrest against all accused, with no bail recommended. Eva Malihan, a Barangay Kagawad, was arrested but allegedly allowed to roam freely in the municipal building.
- Motion to Transfer Malihan: Complainants filed a motion on August 28, 2001, to transfer Malihan to the provincial jail, citing interference from local officials. They furnished copies to the Chief of Police and Judge Dolores Español, which allegedly angered respondent.
- Grant of Bail: On September 14, 2001, respondent granted Malihan’s petition for bail, reclassifying the crime from syndicated estafa (non-bailable) to simple estafa (bailable). Complainants alleged that respondent informed Malihan of the resolution before its issuance, allowing her to post bail immediately.
- Respondent’s Defense: Respondent claimed she acted properly, stating that bail was a matter of right since the crime was simple estafa. She denied allegations of bias, delay, and improper communication with Malihan.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Gross Ignorance of the Law:
- A municipal trial judge has no authority to determine the character of the crime during preliminary investigation; this power lies with the prosecutor. Respondent exceeded her authority by reclassifying syndicated estafa to simple estafa.
- In non-bailable offenses like syndicated estafa, a hearing is mandatory to determine the strength of the evidence of guilt. Respondent granted bail without a hearing, violating procedural rules.
- Judges are expected to be proficient in basic legal and procedural rules. Failure to follow these rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Manifest Bias and Partiality:
- Complainants failed to substantiate allegations of bias and partiality with competent evidence. The Court found no proof that respondent acted with malice or corrupt motives.
Penalty:
- Respondent’s actions warranted the maximum penalty under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for gross ignorance of the law. Her prior administrative sanctions for similar offenses justified the imposition of a three-month suspension and a fine of P40,000.