Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1877)
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1877)
Facts:
This is Moamar Pangandag v. Presiding Judge Ottowa B. Abinal, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1877 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-2635-MTJ), promulgated June 13, 2016, before the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Complainant Moamar Pangandag was charged by Information with the crime of grave threats (People v. Gamama, Crim. Case No. 13-694-MG) filed before the sala of Presiding Judge Ottowa B. Abinal of the Mulondo, Maguing, Lumba-Bayabao, and Taraka MCTC in Lanao del Sur. After finding probable cause, Judge Abinal issued a warrant of arrest against Pangandag and two others.
Fifteen days after issuing the warrant, Judge Abinal voluntarily inhibited himself from hearing the case upon recognition that the private complainant, Monaoray "Nahara" Abdullah, was his niece. The case was transferred to the presiding judge of the Marawi City MTCC. The prosecution later filed a Motion to Withdraw Information based on an Affidavit of Desistance from the private complainant, and the criminal case was dismissed.
Pangandag filed an administrative complaint with the Court against Judge Abinal, alleging (1) that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction because the offense charged carried the penalty of reclusion temporal; and (2) that Judge Abinal should have been disqualified from acting in the case because the private complainant was his niece. Judge Abinal filed a Comment explaining that the Information did not allege a demand for money or imposition of a condition (an element that would elevate the penalty) and thus he considered the charge to be the form of grave threats punishable by arresto mayor; he contended further that issuing the warrant was a ministerial duty and that his inhibition immediately after issuance cured any problem.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended disposition, and the Court resolved the administrative complaint on the basis of the OCA recommendation.
Issues:
- Was Judge Abinal administratively liable for taking cognizance of the criminal complaint for grave threats given the limited jurisdiction of the MCTC?
- Was Judge Abinal administratively liable for acting on the criminal complaint and issuing a warrant of arrest despite the private complainant being his niece (a disqualifying relation)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)