Tuna v. Nazareno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Criminal Case No. 36 was filed on September 1, 1971, charging Wennie Doe, Fred Doe, and Gildo Doe (later identified as Herminigildo Coritana) with murder for the killing of Leoncio Tuna, Jr. on August 15, 1971. During the second stage of the preliminary investigation on November 2, 1971, a prosecution witness recanted his testimony, claiming coercion. Consequently, the respondent Municipal Judge Sergio Nazareno dismissed the case against Herminigildo Coritana. Procedural History: Adoracion Tuna, sister of the deceased, wrote to the Secretary of Justice on March 21, 1972, seeking help. She stated that the respondent Judge told her the case was dismissed for lack of interest. The respondent Judge, in his reply to the Secretary of Justice, provided reasons for the dismissal. The Secretary of Justice recommended the respondent's suspension for six months without pay for failing to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance as required by Section 12, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court. The case was later referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur for investigation. The investigating judge found the respondent guilty of delay and recommended a reprimand, considering the complainant's desistance. The Judicial Consultant agreed with the finding but recommended a fifteen-day suspension without pay. The Petition: This administrative case concerns the respondent Municipal Judge's failure to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur after the preliminary investigation was terminated. The core issue is whether the respondent judge's delay and subsequent explanation for non-compliance warrant administrative sanctions.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Municipal Judge committed an administrative offense for failing to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court. Whether the respondent Judge's explanation regarding lack of funds is a valid justification for the delay.
Ruling
The respondent Municipal Judge is found guilty of unreasonable delay in transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance. He is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for two (2) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent Municipal Judge committed an administrative offense for failing to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court: The Court found the respondent judge guilty of unreasonable delay in transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, as mandated by Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The preliminary investigation was concluded on November 2, 1971, yet the records were only remanded on September 29, 1972, despite a reminder from the Secretary of Justice on August 17, 1972. This delay constitutes a violation of his duty as a judge. The Court emphasized that the timely transmission of records is crucial for the efficient administration of justice and to allow the higher court to proceed with the case. Such failure is an administrative offense for which judges can be held liable. On Whether the respondent Judge's explanation regarding lack of funds is a valid justification for the delay: The respondent Judge's claim of lack of funds to defray the expenses for transmitting the records was found to be patently untenable. Records showed that P150.00 was appropriated for his court, and only P109.01 had been spent, leaving a balance of P40.99, which was sufficient for the transmission costs. Therefore, the alleged lack of funds did not serve as a valid excuse for his non-compliance with Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated that administrative duties must be performed regardless of minor financial constraints, especially when sufficient funds are available.
Main Doctrine
The respondent judge was found guilty of unreasonable delay in transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, as required by Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The preliminary investigation was terminated on November 2, 1971, but the records were only remanded on September 29, 1972, after a reminder from the Secretary of Justice. The claim of lack of funds was deemed untenable as there were sufficient unspent appropriations to cover the transmission expenses. Consequently, the judge was ordered to pay a fine equivalent to two months' salary.