Perez v. Suller
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mayor Salvador M. Perez accused respondent Judge Hilarion A. Suller of grave abuse of discretion, misconduct, ignorance of the law, and acts unbecoming of a judge. The accusation stemmed from the preliminary investigation conducted by respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. SM-7962, entitled "People v. Carlo Perez, Salvador Perez, Jr., and Jerico Perez," for qualified trespass to dwelling. Complainant alleged that the respondent Judge conducted the preliminary investigation despite the complaining witness, Cristobal Suller, Jr., being his nephew. Furthermore, the respondent Judge allegedly issued a warrant of arrest on the same day the complaint was filed without requiring the accused and their witnesses to submit counter-affidavits, and then purportedly left his station the following day to prevent the accused from posting bail. Procedural History: Respondent Judge, in his comment, averred that he found probable cause and issued the warrant of arrest in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. He denied leaving his station and presented attestations from his staff that he reported for work. However, he remained silent regarding his relationship with the complaining witness. The Petition: The complainant sought the disciplinary action against the respondent Judge for alleged grave abuse of discretion, misconduct, ignorance of the law, and acts unbecoming of a judge.
Issue(s)
Whether it is necessary to accord the accused their statutory right to submit counter-affidavits and those of their witnesses prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Whether it was proper for the respondent judge to conduct the preliminary investigation and order the arrest of the accused when the complaining witness is his nephew.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent judge guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and imposed a fine of P1,000.00 with a stern warning. The Court ruled that while the issuance of a warrant of arrest does not require the completion of the entire preliminary investigation procedure, including the submission of counter-affidavits, the respondent judge's participation in the preliminary investigation was improper due to his relationship with the complaining witness.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether counter-affidavits are required before issuing a warrant of arrest: The Court held that there is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued. Section 6 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly authorizes a municipal trial court to order the respondent's arrest even before the second phase of the investigation if the court is satisfied that probable cause exists and there is a necessity for immediate custody to prevent frustrating the ends of justice. Therefore, the respondent judge did not commit an irregularity in issuing the warrant of arrest without requiring the submission of counter-affidavits as a condition precedent. The Court cited Pangandaman, et al. v. Demaporo Casar, et al. in support of this ruling. On the issue of the propriety of the respondent judge conducting the preliminary investigation due to his relationship with the complaining witness: The Court found that the respondent judge's silence on the alleged relationship with the complaining witness, Cristobal Suller, Jr., constituted an admission. The Court emphasized that judges must strictly comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 3.12, which mandates that a judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including cases where the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree. Rule 137, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court also provides for the disqualification of judges in such circumstances. The Court reasoned that while conducting a preliminary investigation may not be strictly construed as 'sitting in a case,' the underlying principle of impartiality remains. The respondent judge's participation, involving his nephew, violated these rules and cast doubt on his fairness, potentially influencing his actions. The Court noted that the respondent judge's resolution to forward the records of the case to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office prior to the expiration of the period for submitting counter-affidavits, despite protests, demonstrated partiality and deprived the accused of an adequate opportunity to present their position. This behavior violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, thereby preserving public faith and confidence in the judiciary.
Main Doctrine
A judge who is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree must inhibit himself from handling a preliminary investigation to preserve the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, even if the preliminary investigation is not strictly considered 'sitting in a case'.