Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-97-1115)
Facts:
Complainants Perlito D. Flores, Arlyn H. Arabilla, Domingo Ramirez, Jorge Bandalan, Vicente Asilom, Mary Jane Villegas, Joel Diaz and Elvira Valenzona were members of the Sangguniang Pambarangay of Domingo C. Veloso in Baybay, Leyte, and were charged with falsification under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code in three criminal cases arising from Resolution No. 14, Series of 1996. Respondent Judge Antonio C. Sumaljag, Acting Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 5, Baybay, conducted preliminary examinations on November 25, 1996, ordered their arrest by warrant, they were detained and later released on bail, and respondent retired on December 13, 1996.
An administrative complaint followed alleging (a) failure to ask searching questions under Rule 112, 6(b), (b) lack of probable cause from the testimony, (c) failure to examine the complainant in two cases, and (d) issuance of arrest warrants without a finding that custody was necessary to prevent frustration of justice.
Issues:
- Did respondent fail to comply with Rule 112, 6(b) by not asking searching questions in the preliminary examinations?
- Did the testimonies before respondent fail to establish probable cause such that disciplinary action was warranted?
- Was the complainant required to be personally examined in Criminal Case Nos. R-3227-A and R-3228-A?
- Did respondent err in issuing warrants of arrest without a finding that custody was necessary to prevent frustration of justice under Rule 112, 6(b)?
Ruling:
The Court held that respondent satisfied his duty to ask searching questions and that the use of leading questions to elicit explanations from reticent witnesses did not constitute gross ignorance of the law. The Court further held that the preliminary-examination determination of probable cause was a judgmental act not ordinarily remediable by administrative discipline absent grave abuse or malice, and that the failure to personally examine the prosecutor was without merit because the offended party, Gualberto Parmis, had been examined. The Court found meritorious the charge that respondent ordered arrests without a required finding that custody was necessary to prevent frustration of justice and imposed a fine of P5,000 to be deducted from respondent’s retirement benefits.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that leading questions were justified to obtain meaningful answers from witnesses who repeatedly responded tersely, and that the witnesses’ affirmative answers remained their own and thus satisfied the searching-question requirement of Rule 112, 6(b). Citing Angcog v. Tan and other precedents, the Court reiterated that the finding of probable cause at a preliminary investigation is summary and judgmental and not a proper basis for disciplining a judge absent grave abuse. Relying on Samulde v. Salvani, Jr. and Mantaring v. Roman, the Court observed that the power to order immediate arrest is discretionary and conditioned on a specific finding that custody is necessary to avoid frustration of justice, a finding absent in this case; under Gallo v. Cordero the Court retained jurisdiction despite respondent’s retirement and imposed a limited fine.
Doctrine:
- Leading or suggestive questions are not improper when necessary to elicit substantive answers from reticent witnesses, provided the witnesses’ answers remain their own.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)