G.R. No. 188314 - People vs. Baharan

Avelina Serafin, Complainant, filed an administrative complaint dated October 19, 1971 with the Secretary of Justice against Santiago Lindayag, Respondent, Municipal Judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan, for capricious and malicious admission in his court of a criminal complaint for estafa and for causing her wrongful arrest and detention.
Executive Judge Andres Sta. Maria, to whom the administrative complaint was referred, indorsed it to the Department of Justice on December 28, 1971 recommending exoneration on the ground that complainant, assisted by counsel, had filed a motion to withdraw the complaint.
The Department of Justice forwarded the record to the Court on January 29, 1973. The Court, after assuming administrative supervision over inferior courts under the 1973 Constitution, referred the complaint anew to the District Judge of Baliwag, Bulacan for investigation on October 29, 1973 and denied respondent's petition to consider the matter closed by virtue of Judge Sta. Maria's recommendation on December 19, 1973.
Investigating Judge Juan F. Echiverri submitted a 34-page report of investigation to the Court received on February 11, 1974.

A criminal complaint docketed as Criminal Case No. 1602 was filed on July 21, 1971 with respondent by Guiguinto Chief of Police Juan P. Estrella at the instance of Carmelito Mendoza, then Municipal Secretary, and his wife Corazon Mendoza.
The body of the original complaint plainly recited a failure to pay an indebtedness of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P1,500.00) PESOS due since January 28, 1971 and therefore on its face charged no crime but a simple debt.
Supporting sworn statements executed by the Mendozas before respondent likewise showed they lent complainant P1,500 because she was an old friend and that she had promised to pay; the statements recited nonpayment and demand for repayment.
Notes of the preliminary examination taken by respondent consisted of seven questions and seven answers showing no vestige of the elements of estafa under Article 315, Revised Penal Code; one question by respondent reflected awareness that the matter concerned nonpayment, and the Mendozas answered that they filed the complaint to have her punished.

Respondent admitted the criminal complaint and, on July 22, 1971, issued a warrant of arrest on the finding that "the accused is probably guilty of the crime charged."
Complainant was arrested on Saturday, July 25, 1971, at a time when bonding companies were closed, and was detained in the municipal jail until July 28, 1971 when she posted the P1,000 bail set for her release.
A motion to quash filed by complainant's counsel was later granted by respondent in an Order dated September 30, 1971 which found the motion "meritorious and well taken" and dismissed the case; the motion itself was later lost from the records attributed to damage from the 1972 floods.

Respondent later included in the records submitted to the Investigator a purported Amended Complaint and an additional set of notes of preliminary examination allegedly taken within thirty minutes of the original notes; the Amended Complaint alleged facts that would introduce elements of estafa.
The Investigator found Exhibits (the Amended Complaint and the additional notes) to be spurious based on superficial examination of their appearance, condition, absence of staple holes present in genuine records, and disparity of signatures.
A comparison of the alleged signature of Chief of Police Estrella on the purported Amended Complaint with his admitted genuine signature on the original complaint led the Investigator to conclude the former signature was "NOT GENUINE."
Respondent did not present Estrella at investi...(Subscriber-Only)

Legality of respondent's admission of the criminal complaint and issuance of warrant

Whether the admission of the criminal complaint and issuance of the warrant were proper when the complaint and supporting statements on their face charged only a simple indebtedness lacking elements of estafa.
Whether respondent complied with Republic Act No. 296, section 87, requiring personal examination under oath reduced to searching questions and answers before issuing a warrant.

Whether respondent fabricated or submitted spurious records (an Amended Complaint and additional notes of preliminary examination) to justify his earlier actions.
Whether respondent produced adequate evidence or witnesses, such as Estrella, to authenticate those purported records ...(Subscriber-Only)