Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472)
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472)
Facts:
Judge Martonino R. Marcos (Retired) v. Hon. Perla V. Cabrera‑Faller, A.M. No. RTJ‑16‑2472 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13‑4141‑RTJ), January 24, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The complaint arose from the death of complainant’s grandson, Marc Andrei Marcos, during alleged hazing at a fraternity initiation on July 29, 2012 at Veluz Farm, Dasmariñas City, Cavite. After a preliminary investigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) issued a Resolution dated May 8, 2013 recommending prosecution under R.A. No. 8049 (Anti‑Hazing Law) and discharging Cornelio Marcelo as a state witness pursuant to Sec. 12, R.A. No. 6981. An Information for violation of R.A. No. 8049 was later filed and docketed as Criminal Case No. 11862‑13.
On June 3, 2013, Presiding Judge Perla V. Cabrera‑Faller issued an order finding probable cause and directing issuance of warrants of arrest, but simultaneously ordered the immediate archiving of the case until arrest. On June 13, 2013 she issued an order recalling the warrants against three accused as having been “inadvertently issued.” On August 15, 2013 she issued an Omnibus Order quashing the warrants and dismissing the case for lack of probable cause, explaining that the prosecution’s principal statement (Marcelo’s) and other evidence were not properly juxtaposed and were, in her view, uncorroborated or incredible.
Aggrieved, complainant filed an administrative letter‑complaint alleging incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, misconduct and deliberate rendering of an unjust order. Judge Cabrera‑Faller filed a comment denying corruption and asserting the questioned order was thoroughly reasoned; she also alleged rumors that the private complainant had received settlements from accused. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in a Report dated June 10, 2016, found respondent liable for gross ignorance of the law for (1) inadvertent issuance of warrants, (2) immediate archiving in violation of Administrative Circular No. 7‑A‑92, and (3) precipitous dismissal, and recommended suspension for six months without pay.
The case reached the Supreme Court by administrative process (petition/complaint before the Court sitting En Banc on A.M. docket). The Court considered the OCA Report, the parties’ pleadings, and the record of Criminal Case No. 11862‑13 before issuing its decision.
Issues:
- Did Judge Cabrera‑Faller violate Administrative Circular No. 7‑A‑92 and commit grave abuse by ordering the immediate archiving of Criminal Case No. 11862‑13 after issuing warrants of arrest?
- Did recalling certain warrants as “inadvertently issued” without explanation constitute abdication of the judicial duty to personally determine probable cause and thus gross ignorance or misconduct under the Constitution and the Rules of Court?
- Was the summary dismissal of Criminal Case No. 11862‑13 for lack of probable cause proper, or did it amount to gross ignorance of the law warranting administrative sanction?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)