A.M. No. MTJ-97-1115; June 5, 1998
Posted By: Alaine Joyce on July 24, 2018
FACTS:
This is an administrative case against Judge Antonio C. Sumaljag, Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 5, Municipal Trial Court of Baybay, Leyte, for gross ignorance of the law in connection with the preliminary investigation of three criminal cases and arrest of complainants.
Complainants, member of the Sangguniang Pambarangay of Domingo C. Veloso in Baybay, Leyte, were charged with three counts of falsification of public document. On November 25, 1996, Judge Sumaljag conducted a preliminary examination, during which the complainant, Parmis, and his witness Cala, Jr., testified in each of the criminal case. Thereafter, Judge Sumaljag ordered the arrest of the complainants. On December 13, 1996, the respondent judge retired.
Complainants instituted the administrative case against respondent judge claiming among others that the respondent ordered their arrest without justification of doing so "in order not to frustrate the ends of justice."
ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of warrants of arrest was justified.
HELD: No, the issuance of the warrants of arrest was not justified.
While before the 1985 revision of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant of arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judge's power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody "in order not to frustrate the ends of justice." In Mantaring v. Roman, we reprimanded a judge because it appeared that respondent ordered the issuance of warrant of arrest solely on the finding of probable cause, totally omitting to consider whether it was necessary to do so in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
The jurisdiction that was the Court's at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. Considering that respondent judge has retired, the only appropriate penalty that could be imposed on him, in light of what he failed to do in this case, is a fine of P5,000.
