Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391)
Facts:
Rodolfo Rama Rino v. Judge Alfonso R. Cawaling, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391, June 07, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. The administrative matter arose from a verified Letter-Complaint dated September 5, 2000, in which Rodolfo Rama Rino (complainant, then the accused in a criminal case) charged Judge Alfonso R. Cawaling of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Cajidiocan, Romblon (respondent) with bias, partiality, abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law in connection with Criminal Case No. 4511, People v. Rodolfo Rama Rino, for grave threats.According to the complaint, the respondent conducted a preliminary investigation on October 27, 1999 without giving due notice to the accused and, prematurely and with undue haste, issued an arrest warrant on October 28, 1999, which resulted in the complainant’s temporary custody and necessity to post bail. In his comment, the respondent asserted that the subpoena was served on the complainant and his witnesses pursuant to Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; that after filing a counter-affidavit a preliminary investigation was held on the afternoon of October 27, 1999 and a warrant was thereafter issued, after which the complainant posted bail and was released.
The respondent further recounted that on the scheduled arraignment of August 16, 2000 the complainant appeared with counsel, who moved to defer arraignment and pre-trial and moved for the respondent’s inhibition because of the administrative complaint; the respondent inhibited himself and Judge Placido C. Marquez approved the inhibition. The respondent also maintained that Criminal Case No. 4511 was not governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure because, he contended, the imposable penalty exceeded six months.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the administrative complaint be re‑docketed as an administrative matter and that the respondent be fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) for gross ignorance of the law, on the ground that the offense charged was covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. The matter was referred to Executive Judge Vedasto B. Marco, Regional Trial Court, Romblon, for investigation; his Report and Recommendation (January 15, 2004) concluded that respondent did not violate procedura...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit gross ignorance of the law and warrant disciplinary sanction?
- Was Criminal Case No. 4511 governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, such that the respondent’s use of regular procedure (preliminary investigation and issuance of war...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)