Sales v. Calvan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mayor Reynolan T. Sales filed a complaint against Judge Melvyn U. Calvan for gross violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Court, and for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order. Complainant was the defendant in Criminal Case No. 9448-P before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bangui, Ilocos Norte, which arose from a shooting incident on August 2, 1999, resulting in the death of former Mayor Rafael Benemerito. Complainant surrendered to authorities. Procedural History: On August 3, 1999, a criminal complaint was filed against complainant for preliminary investigation. Respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation the same day, found probable cause for murder, and issued a warrant for complainant's arrest without bail. Complainant was arrested and detained. Respondent concluded the preliminary investigation without complainant submitting a counter-affidavit, issuing a resolution on August 5, 1999, finding a prima facie case. Records were transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor on August 6, 1999. The Petition: Complainant alleged that respondent judge violated Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court because respondent's wife is the niece of the deceased, making respondent a relative within the third degree of affinity to the deceased and the complaining witness. Complainant also cited violations of Canon 2, Rule 2.03 and Canon 3, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, complainant claimed denial of due process for the hasty conduct of the preliminary investigation and issuance of the arrest warrant while he was already in custody, and for not being given notice to file a counter-affidavit. The Court of Appeals later declared the preliminary investigation null and void for not conforming to legal requirements. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P10,000.00 for conducting the investigation while disqualified and for procedural lapses, but found no evidence of knowingly rendering an unjust order.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed a gross violation of Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and Canon 3, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by conducting a preliminary investigation despite being related by affinity to the victim and the complaining witness. Whether respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment or order. Whether respondent judge violated complainant's right to due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Melvyn U. Calvan GUILTY of gross violation of Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, and of Rule 2.03 of Canon 2 and Rule 3.12 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A FINE of ₱10,000.00 was imposed on him, with a warning against repetition of the offense. The charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the disqualification of the judge: The Court held that respondent judge committed a gross violation of Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and Canon 3, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The respondent admitted being related by affinity within the third civil degree to the deceased and the complaining witness, as his wife is their niece. The Court clarified that the prohibition against a judge sitting in a case where he is related to a party within the sixth degree of affinity applies even to the preliminary investigation stage, not just to the trial proper. Citing Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas, the Court defined "to sit" in a case as holding court or doing any act of a judicial nature, which includes resolving motions and issuing orders. Therefore, conducting a preliminary investigation and determining probable cause falls within this prohibition. The rationale behind this mandatory disqualification, as explained in Garcia v. De la Peña, is to preserve the people's faith and confidence in the courts by ensuring that judges are free from suspicion of bias or partiality. Even in the case of Perez v. Suller, which respondent cited, the Court noted that the respondent judge should have refrained from handling the preliminary investigation due to a similar relationship. The Court emphasized that judges have an obligation to keep the image of the judiciary unsullied, and respondent failed to uphold this duty. On the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order: The Court found no evidence to support this charge. The complainant failed to prove that the orders issued by the respondent judge were patently contrary to law or were issued with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. The Court noted that respondent seemed to have misapprehended the old rule on preliminary investigation, which consisted of two stages, instead of the current single-stage procedure under Rule 112, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. This misapprehension, while leading to procedural errors, did not amount to knowingly rendering an unjust order. On the violation of due process: The Court acknowledged that respondent failed to follow the proper procedure for preliminary investigation as mandated by Rule 112, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The hasty conduct of the investigation and the issuance of the arrest warrant while the complainant was already in custody were procedural lapses. However, the Court did not find these lapses to constitute a knowing rendition of an unjust order, but rather a failure to keep abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence, which could be considered gross ignorance of the law.
Main Doctrine
A judge is disqualified from conducting a preliminary investigation if related by affinity within the sixth degree to a party litigant, as such participation, even at the preliminary stage, falls within the prohibition against sitting in a case where impartiality may reasonably be questioned, thereby preserving public faith in the judiciary.