Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1837)
Facts:
Visitacion L. Estodillo, et al. v. Judge Teofilo D. Baluma, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1837, March 23, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. Complainants are Visitacion L. Estodillo and her daughter Jovelyn Estudillo; respondent is Judge Teofilo D. Baluma, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Bohol, Branch 1 (Family Court). Prosecutors Macario I. Delusa and Eric M. Ucat and counsel Esther Gertrude D. Biliran participated as parties in the factual narrative and in respondents' counter‑pleadings.The administrative complaint (verified, December 26, 2002) arose from respondent Judge Baluma’s dismissal (Order dated November 21, 2002) of Criminal Case No. 11627 (People v. Fredie Cirilo Nocos y Urot) for Other Acts of Child Abuse. The case had been the subject of preliminary investigation before the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tubigon‑Clarin, where Judge James Stewart E. Himalaloan found sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial and transmitted the record to the Provincial Prosecutor. Third Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Macario I. Delusa filed the Information dated October 28, 2002.
In his November 21, 2002 Order respondent dismissed the Information on the ground that it was not subscribed and sworn to by the prosecutor, concluding that the defect rendered the Information null and the case dismissed. The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Revival (Dec. 12, 2002), arguing that an information need only be subscribed (not sworn) and that the prosecutor had in fact subscribed it. On January 10, 2003, respondent issued an Order granting reconsideration and reviving the case but required the prosecutor to file a new information complying with Rule 112, Section 4 and departmental circulars within ten days.
After the prosecution did not comply and filed other motions (including an ex parte motion to increase bail filed Jan. 30, 2003), respondent initially refused to act on those motions until a new information was filed. The prosecution then manifested it would not file a new information, claiming respondent’s order was contrary to law and jurisprudence. Complainants sought the Court’s intervention, noting that respondent had earlier in another case (Criminal Case No. 11514, People v. Eduardo Vedra) dismissed an Information on the same ground, then later reinstated that case — raising inconsistency concerns.
Respondent filed a Comment denying intentional wrongdoing and asserting he had later issued an Order (Feb. 27, 2003) finding probable cause to place the accused in custody and fixing bail; he also filed a counter‑complaint against Prosecutor Ucat and Atty. Biliran for alleged professional misconduct. Rejoinders by Prosecutor Ucat and A...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Baluma commit an error of law by dismissing the Information on the ground that it was not sworn to by the prosecutor (i.e., is an information required to be under oath)?
- Did Judge Baluma’s acts constitute a breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct warranting disciplinary sanction?
- Should respondent’s counter‑complaint against Prosecutor Eric M. Ucat and Atty. Esther ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)