JUDGE MARTONINO R. MARCOS (Retired), Complainant, vs. HON. PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmariñas City, Cavite, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4141-RTJ].
January 24, 2017
FACTS:
Before the Court is an administrative complaint against the respondent filed by the complainant, for ignorance of the law, misconduct, violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act, and for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment/order.
The controversy stemmed from the death of complainant's grandson, Marc Andrei Marcos (Marc Andrei), during the initiation rites of Lex Leonum Fratemitas (Lex Leonum) held on July 29, 2012 at the Veluz Farm, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.
A preliminary investigation was conducted and, thereafter, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) issued its Resolution, dated May 8, 2013, recommending the prosecution of several members of Lex Leonum for Violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8049, otherwise known as The Anti-Hazing Law. In the same resolution, the OCP also recommended that Cornelio Marcelo (Marcelo), the person assigned to be the buddy or "angel" of Marc Andrei during the initiation rites, be discharged as a state witness pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6981.
Thereafter, the Information for Violation of R.A. No. 8049 was filed against Jenno Antonio Villanueva (Villanueva), Emmanuel Jefferson Santiago, Richard Rosales (Rosales), Mohamad Fyzee Alim (Alim), Chino Daniel Amante (Amante), Julius Arsenio Alcancia, Edrich Gomez, Dexter Circa, Gian Angelo Veluz, Glenn Meduen, alias Tanton, alias Fidel, alias E.R., and alias Paulo, before the RTC. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 11862-13.
Finding probable cause to sustain the prosecution of the accused, Judge Cabrera-Faller issued the Order,5 dated June 3, 2013, directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest and, at the same time, the archiving of the entire record of the case until the arrest of the accused.
On June 13, 2013, acting on the Omnibus Motion filed by Rosales, Alim and Amante, Judge Cabrera-Faller issued another Order directing the recall of the warrants of arrest of the three accused which she claimed were issued inadvertently.
On August 15, 2013, acting on the separate motions for the determination of probable cause and to withhold issuance of warrants of arrest7 and extremely urgent motion to quash warrant of arrest8 filed by the accused, Judge Cabrera-Faller issued the Omnibus Order,9 quashing, lifting and setting aside the warrants for their arrest and ultimately dismissing the case against all of them for lack of probable cause.
According to Judge Cabrera-Faller, she found no probable cause to indict the accused for violation of R.A. No. 8049 as the statement of Marcelo and those of the other accused "were not put in juxtaposition with each other for a clearer and sharper focus of their respective weight and substance." To her, "there were nagging questions left unanswered by the testimony of Marcelo and some improbabilities therein that boggle the mind and disturb the conscience into giving it absolute currency and credence." In her view, "the statement of Marcelo simply depicted the stages of initiation rites" and failed to show that the accused conspired to inflict fatal injuries on Marc Andrei. She found the statements of the prosecution witnesses, Marcelo Cabansag (Cabansag) and Jan Marcel V. Ragaza (Ragaza) either untruthful, immaterial and incompetent or brimming with flip flopping testimonies. She brushed aside the admission of the accused that initiation rites were indeed conducted on July 29, 2012 and that they were allegedly present in the different stages of the initiation rites, and simply believed the version of the accused that it was Marcelo, the recruiter and "angel'' of Marc Andrei, who inflicted the fatal blows on him, causing his death.
ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the recall of the warrants of arrest that were allegedly issued inadvertently and hasty dismissal of the case constitute gross ignorance of the law and incompetence
RULING:
1.Yes. The actuations of the Hon. Perla V. Cabrera-Faller clearly demonstrate her incompetence and gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides that "the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest." When she issued the Order dated June 3, 2013, she certified that she personally evaluated the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence and ruled that there was probable cause so she directed the issuance of warrants of arrest against all the accused. A judge who issues a warrant of arrest INADVERTENTLY has no place in the judiciary because such actuation clearly shows her incompetence and gross ignorance of both substantive and procedural laws.
Judge Cabrera-Faller showed manifest bias and partiality, if not gross ignorance of the law, when she issued the June 13, 2013 Order recalling the warrants of arrest against accused Alim, Amante and Rosales claiming that they were issued inadvertently.
In the judicial determination of probable cause, no less than the Constitution mandates a judge to personally determine the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. This has been embodied in Section 2, Article III of the Philippine Constitution and Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Clearly, Judge Cabrera-Faller was mandated to personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, to issue a warrant of arrest. Though she was not required to personally examine the complainant or his witnesses, she was obliged to personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor before ordering the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
It could only mean that she failed to comply with her constitutional mandate to personally determine the existence of probable cause before ordering the issuance of the warrants of arrest. As the presiding judge, it was her task, upon the filing of the Information, to first and foremost determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. It was incumbent upon her to assess the resolution, affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor to satisfy herself that probable cause existed and before a warrant of arrest could be issued against the accused. If she did find the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to be insufficient, she could order the dismissal of the case, or direct the investigating prosecutor either to submit more evidence or to submit the entire records of the preliminary investigation, or she could even call the complainant and the witness to answer the courts probing questions to enable her to discharge her duty.
Unfortunately, Judge Cabrera-Faller fell short of this basic canon. Her utter disregard of the laws and rules of procedure, to wit: the immediate archiving of Criminal Case No. 11862-13, the recall of the warrant of arrest which she claimed were issued inadvertently and the hasty dismissal of the case displayed her lack of competence and probity, and can only be considered as grave abuse of authority. All these constitute gross ignorance of the law and incompetence.
No comments:
Post a Comment