Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1248)
Facts:
Fabiana J. Padua v. Judge Eufemio R. Molina, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1248, December 01, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Complainant Fabiana J. Padua filed an administrative charge against Judge Eufemio R. Molina, Presiding Judge, MTC Branch II, San Fernando, La Union, alleging gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. 31693, "People of the Philippines v. Julio F. Padua." Complainant is the mother of the victim, Bartholomew J. Padua; the accused in the criminal case is her husband, Julio F. Padua.On June 9, 1997 the accused shot and killed the victim. Senior Police Officer IV Herminio C. Barnachea filed a criminal complaint for parricide on June 10, 1997; the case was raffled to respondent judge for preliminary investigation. In an Order dated June 18, 1997, respondent directed the accused to submit counter-affidavit and supporting papers within ten days. On June 23, 1997, an Affidavit of Desistance was filed by one Mercedita Opamil‑Padua, who claimed to be the victim's widow and attached a marriage contract dated January 11, 1988.
On July 24, 1997, relying on that Affidavit of Desistance the accused moved to dismiss the complaint and sought release; respondent granted the motion, reasoning that the alleged widow was the offended party and primary forced heir, and ordered the records forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Complainant thereafter filed a letter‑complaint (August 20, 1997) asserting that respondent acted with partiality, failed to set the motion to dismiss for hearing, neglected to issue a resolution on the preliminary examination held on August 5, 1997 (where she testified), and endorsed the case to the prosecutor without transmitting the transcript of stenographic notes; she also alleged Mercedita was not the legal wife and that Rufina Ochavillo‑Padua, the legal wife, had been present at the preliminary investigation.
Respondent denied improper conduct, asserting that preliminary investigation is inquisitorial and does not require a hearing on the motion, that the Affidavit of Desistance had persuasive effect because the documentary evidence then on record pointed to Mercedita as the alleged legal wife, and that Section 5, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require transmission of the stenographic transcript. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and reported that respondent erred: parricide is a public offense and an affidavit of desistance does not extinguish criminal liability (citing U.S. v. Leano, 6 Phil. 368); probable cause should b...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent violate Section 5, Rule 112 and related procedural duties by failing to transmit the transcript of stenographic notes of the preliminary investigation to the provincial prosecutor?
- Was the dismissal of a parricide complaint proper where it was based solely on an Affidavit of Desistance by an alleged widow?
- Is respondent administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)