A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472 - Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472)

Background and Case Proceedings

Following the death of Marc Andrei Marcos, a preliminary investigation was conducted leading to the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Dasmariñas City issuing a resolution on May 8, 2013. The OCP recommended prosecution of several members of Lex Leonum for violating R.A. No. 8049, and the discharge of Cornelio Marcelo as a state witness under R.A. No. 6981. Subsequently, an Information was filed before the RTC docketed as Criminal Case No. 11862-13, charging multiple accused fraternity members with violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.

Judge Cabrera-Faller issued an order on June 3, 2013, finding probable cause and directing issuance of warrants of arrest while simultaneously archiving the case record. Ten days later, on June 13, 2013, she recalled the warrants against three accused, alleging they were “inadvertently issued.” On August 15, 2013, upon motions filed by the accused, she issued an omnibus order quashing the warrants for arrest and dismissing the case for lack of probable cause. The judge expressed skepticism about the prosecution’s evidence, particularly questioning the reliability and corroboration of key witness Marcelo’s statements and discounting the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimonies. She also rejected the need to prove conspiracy to inflict fatal injuries as a legal prerequisite.

Complainant's Allegations Against Judge Cabrera-Faller

The complainant alleged that Judge Cabrera-Faller demonstrated gross ignorance of the law and incompetence by first finding probable cause without full evaluation, then calling the earlier issuance of warrants “inadvertent” without explanation, thus evidencing failure to personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution as required under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The complainant argued that the judge’s recall of warrants was unjustified and possibly motivated by considerations other than law. He further contended that the judge was biased in favor of the accused, wrongly rejecting corroborated prosecution evidence and improperly requiring proof of conspiracy which is unnecessary under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049. The complainant emphasized that mere presence during hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as principal and insisted that dismissal was premature as the judge failed to respect the office of the prosecutor’s findings.

The complainant also denied alleged “pay-offs” made to the family and criticized the judge’s reliance on rumors about such payments. He stressed that payment of civil liability does not justify dismissal of the criminal case.

Respondent Judge Cabrera-Faller’s Position

Judge Cabrera-Faller denied all allegations and maintained that she exercised her judicial functions with fairness and equity. She underscored the grievous loss of the complainant but insisted that her orders were based on careful evaluation and not on corruption or bias. She mentioned that the complainant had remedies through judicial channels, such as a pending motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order and cited jurisprudence that errors in judicial decisions are not grounds for administrative liability but should be addressed via judicial remedies. The judge also referenced rumors circulating in the media about “pay-offs,” calling the complainant’s accusations a “charade.”

Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

The OCA, in its report dated June 10, 2016, found Judge Cabrera-Faller guilty of gross ignorance of the law for:

Inadvertently issuing warrants of arrest.
Sending the case record to archives prematurely, in violation of Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92.
Precipitately dismissing the criminal case without proper evaluation.

The OCA recommended a six-month suspension without salary and other benefits.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Archiving of the Case

The Court confirmed that Judge Cabrera-Faller violated Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 by immediately ordering the archiving of the case record upon issuance of warrants of arrest, instead of waiting for the six-month period for the accused to be at large or for proper grounds enumerated in the circular. The Court emphasized that archiving is an exceptional procedural measure used only under specific conditions and its immediate application was unprecedented and improper, reflecting grave abuse of discretion.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Recall of Warrants of Arrest

The Court held that Judge Cabrera-Faller’s recall of warrants on the ground of inadvertence was unsupported and reflected manifest bias, partiality, or gross ignorance of the law. The judge is constitutionally mandated to personally determine probable cause before issuing a warrant, requiring evaluation of the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence. The absence of explanation for the alleged inadvertence demonstrated a failure to comply with this mandate, effectively amounting to an abdication of judicial duty. The Court emphasized that a judge should be diligent in assessing evidence and engaging in procedural steps before issuing or recalling warrants.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Dismissal of the Case

The Court found that the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 11862-13 was hasty and imprudent. It underscored that judicial discretion in case disposition must protect substantial rights and due process and should not be capriciously exercised. The Court referenced prior decisions establishing that a judge should respect the determination of probable cause by the public prosecutor unless there is manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, or prejudice. The records, including sworn statements of the state witness and two neophytes who corroborated the hazing incidents and injuries inflicted, supported probable cause. The judge’s insinuations that the prosecutor was swayed by public pressure, or that there was a lack of corroborating evidence, were found unfounded.

The Court reiterated that probable cause determination is a low threshold inquiry and is not intended for resolving evidentiary conflicts or requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that the evidence shows the accused probably committed the offense. Moreover, Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049 prescribes liability of fraternity members present or participating in hazing when physical injury or death results, without necessity of proving conspiracy.

Court’s Concerns on Judicial Competence and Integrity

The Court observed that Judge Cabrera-Faller’s acts—improper archiving, unwarranted recall of arrest warrants, and precipitous dismissal—displayed lack of legal knowledge, incompetence, and disregard for procedural rules. These acts compromise judicial inte

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472)

Case Background and Parties Involved

Complainant: Martonino R. Marcos, a retired judge, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller.
Respondent: Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 90, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.
Subject Matter: Allegations against Judge Cabrera-Faller for ignorance of the law, misconduct, violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act, and for rendering an unjust judgment/order.
Origin of Complaint: Stemmed from the death of complainant’s grandson, Marc Andrei Marcos, during hazing initiation rites by Lex Leonum Fraternitas on July 29, 2012, at Veluz Farm, Dasmariñas City.
Subsequent Legal Action: The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) recommended prosecution of several fraternity members for violations under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) and discharge of a key witness, Cornelio Marcelo, as a state witness.
Criminal Case No. 11862-13 was filed against multiple accused fraternity members before the RTC, Branch 90.

Chronology of Key Judicial Orders and Findings

June 3, 2013: Judge Cabrera-Faller found probable cause, ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest for the accused, and prematurely archived the case record.
June 13, 2013: The judge recalled the warrants of arrest for three accused persons, stating the warrants were issued “inadvertently,” without an adequate explanation.
August 15, 2013: Issued an Omnibus Order dismissing the entire case for lack of probable cause, citing deficiencies in witness testimonies and unresolved "nagging questions."
Judgment highlighted skepticism towards the testimony of Cornelio Marcelo, disbelieved the conspiracy of accused causing the death, and dismissed prosecution despite admissions of hazing activities.

Complainant’s Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

Accused Judge Cabrera-Faller of:
- Incompetence and gross ignorance of the law for recalling warrants that had been validly issued after finding probable cause.
- Violating Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which requires personal evaluation of probable cause and issuance of warrants if found.
- Issuing contradictory orders which undermined the judicial process.
- Manifesting bias favoring the accused by dismissing credible and corroborated testimony.
- Erroneously believing media pressure influenced the prosecution’s case and disregarding supporting evidence beyond Marcelo’s statement.
- Incorrectly requiring proof of conspiracy to inflict fatal injuries, contrary to R.A. 8049 which holds those present liable.
- Improperly dismissing the case on "unreasonable and normal" supposition, absolving all accused regardless of evidence.
- Discounting the legal presumption that presence during hazing constitutes prima facie participation.
- Misunderstanding that a judge’s role at the issuance of arrest warrants is limited to determining probable cause, not guilt.

Respondent Judge Cabrera-Faller’s Defense and Assertions

Expressed sympathy for the complainant’s loss but denied allegations of corruption or dishonesty.
Stated that the contested orders were carefully reasoned twenty-page resolutions reflecting thorough consideration of parties’ positions.
Raised the issue of alleged settlements reportedly received by the complainant except from