SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C.No. 532-MJ, July 25, 1975 ]
PAULA S. QUIZON, EX. AL., COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR., RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
CONCEPCION, J.:
Complainants Paula S. Quizon, Teresita G. Hipolito, Victoria Samia, Benjamin S. Vergara, Romulo de Jesus, Benigno Ramos, and Honorato Layug are teachers and officers of the Parent-Teachers Association of Dolores Elementary School, Mabalacat, Pampanga. In a
letter to the Secretary of the Department of Public Information dated October 2, 1972, the said complainants, together with six others, aired their complaint against the Barrio Captain and other barrio officials of Barrio Dolores, Mabalacat, Pampanga for abuses and harassment
allegedly perpetrated by the said officials against the signatories to the letter. Because of this letter, Barrio Captain Amado M. Rimorin, on his behalf and on behalf of the other barrio officials, filed a complaint for libel against the complainants herein which was docketed
as Criminal Case No. 2368 in the Municipal Court of Mabalacat, Pampanga, presided by respondent herein, Judge Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. The preliminary investigation of the case was set by respondent for December 4,1972 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. Due to the nonappearance of
their lawyer, Mrs. Paula S. Quizon requested for a postponement as soon as the court session was opened at 9:00 o'clock. Respondent denied the motion and proceeded with the preliminary investigation although the accused were not represented by counsel. The preliminary
investigation lasted less than one hour. The next day respondent issued a warrant of arrest against the complainants herein. The said warrant was served the very same day at nighttime. After complainants had been taken into custody, Mr. Flor Quizon, the son of Mrs. Paula S.
Quizon, went to respondent's house in the middle of the night to ask for the reduction of the bail bond of his mother which had been set at PI,000.00. Instead of acting on it immediately, respondent waited until the next day when he reduced the bail bond to P300.00. However, the
complainants had to spend the night in jail.
Because respondent is neither a judge of the municipal court of the city or capital of the province, complainants charge respondent with grave ignorance of the law and criminal negligence in conducting the preliminary investigation of a libel case, in violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 4363 amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.[1] Complainants also claim that respondent acted with partiality in his official actuations relative to Criminal Case No. 2368 of the Mabalacat Municipal Court because Barrio Captain Amado M. Rimorin and his councilmen are fanatical political followers of Mayor Walfredo C. Halili who is identified to be a close friend of respondent.
The provisions of Act No. 4363 amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code are so clear and unmistakable that there can be no room for doubt or even interpretation. In taking cognizance of the libel ease, respondent was clearly without jurisdiction. The kindest thing we can say of him is that he is ignorant of the plain and categorical provisions of law. Moreover, as early as April 5, 1967 the Department of Justice circularized[2] all city judges and municipal judges relative to the provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 4363 as follows:
There can therefore be no excuse for respondent's error of law.
But there are other matters that have not escaped our observation. To begin with the letter[3] of complainants to the Secretary of the Department of Public Information, and which forms the basis for the libel complaint, is clearly a privileged communication, so inoffensively worded that not even a single name of the barrio officials referred to as committing the abuses and harassment is mentioned. This fact alone should have alerted respondent to act with extreme caution. Aside from this, the accused in the libel case are all teachers, five of them being ladies, and members of the Parent-Teachers Association of Barrio Dolores, Mabalacat. Respondent therefore acted injudiciously and with unjustified haste in denying the motion to postpone the preliminary investigation on the ground that the accused therein had no counsel, especially if we consider that it was the first time that a motion to postpone was ever made.
In proceeding with the preliminary investigation and in terminating the same within less than an hour, without any written record of the proceedings taken, respondent again violated a clear mandate of the law as required by Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended which provides as follows:
To top it all, after complainants were arrested at nighttime, and when a petition to reduce the bail bond was presented to respondent at his house to enable complainants to obtain their temporary release and thus be spared from having to spend the night in jail, respondent did not act on the petition then and there but instead waited until the next morning, as if to insure that complainants would have to stay in jail for at least that night.
Wittingly or unwittingly, respondent allowed himself to become a tool for harassment.
As to the charge of partiality, complainants' evidence in this regard is not all too clear and convincing. On the contrary, it appears that complainant Mrs. Paula S. Quizon through her counsel, Atty. Zoilo Andin, also filed a libel case against Barrio Captain Amado Rimorin, et al. on December 14, 1972 before the Municipal Court of Mabalacat, Pampanga, and the respondent after conducting the preliminary investigation in the said case, also ordered the arrest of Amado M. Rimorin and his co-accused.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, respondent is hereby found guilty of grave ignorance of the provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 4363 and of the provisions of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, for which he shall suffer the penalty of suspension without pay for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this resolution.
Barredo, Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J. (Chairman), concurs and submits a brief opinion.
[1] Section 1, Act No. 4363 provides: ". . . "Preliminary' investigation of criminal actions for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such actions may he instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.'"
[2] Circular No. 27 dated April 5, 1965,
[3] Rollo. pp. 18-19.
Because respondent is neither a judge of the municipal court of the city or capital of the province, complainants charge respondent with grave ignorance of the law and criminal negligence in conducting the preliminary investigation of a libel case, in violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 4363 amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.[1] Complainants also claim that respondent acted with partiality in his official actuations relative to Criminal Case No. 2368 of the Mabalacat Municipal Court because Barrio Captain Amado M. Rimorin and his councilmen are fanatical political followers of Mayor Walfredo C. Halili who is identified to be a close friend of respondent.
The provisions of Act No. 4363 amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code are so clear and unmistakable that there can be no room for doubt or even interpretation. In taking cognizance of the libel ease, respondent was clearly without jurisdiction. The kindest thing we can say of him is that he is ignorant of the plain and categorical provisions of law. Moreover, as early as April 5, 1967 the Department of Justice circularized[2] all city judges and municipal judges relative to the provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 4363 as follows:
"It should be noted from these provisions that a complaint or information for libel may be filed only in the Court of First Instance. The preliminary investigation of the criminal case may, however, be conducted by the city court of the city or the municipal court of the capital of the province where the case is filed." (p. 190, rollo).
There can therefore be no excuse for respondent's error of law.
But there are other matters that have not escaped our observation. To begin with the letter[3] of complainants to the Secretary of the Department of Public Information, and which forms the basis for the libel complaint, is clearly a privileged communication, so inoffensively worded that not even a single name of the barrio officials referred to as committing the abuses and harassment is mentioned. This fact alone should have alerted respondent to act with extreme caution. Aside from this, the accused in the libel case are all teachers, five of them being ladies, and members of the Parent-Teachers Association of Barrio Dolores, Mabalacat. Respondent therefore acted injudiciously and with unjustified haste in denying the motion to postpone the preliminary investigation on the ground that the accused therein had no counsel, especially if we consider that it was the first time that a motion to postpone was ever made.
In proceeding with the preliminary investigation and in terminating the same within less than an hour, without any written record of the proceedings taken, respondent again violated a clear mandate of the law as required by Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended which provides as follows:
"No warrant of arrest shall be issued by any municipal judge in any criminal case filed with him unless he first examines the witness or witnesses personally, and the examination shall be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers."
To top it all, after complainants were arrested at nighttime, and when a petition to reduce the bail bond was presented to respondent at his house to enable complainants to obtain their temporary release and thus be spared from having to spend the night in jail, respondent did not act on the petition then and there but instead waited until the next morning, as if to insure that complainants would have to stay in jail for at least that night.
Wittingly or unwittingly, respondent allowed himself to become a tool for harassment.
As to the charge of partiality, complainants' evidence in this regard is not all too clear and convincing. On the contrary, it appears that complainant Mrs. Paula S. Quizon through her counsel, Atty. Zoilo Andin, also filed a libel case against Barrio Captain Amado Rimorin, et al. on December 14, 1972 before the Municipal Court of Mabalacat, Pampanga, and the respondent after conducting the preliminary investigation in the said case, also ordered the arrest of Amado M. Rimorin and his co-accused.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, respondent is hereby found guilty of grave ignorance of the provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 4363 and of the provisions of Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, for which he shall suffer the penalty of suspension without pay for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this resolution.
Barredo, Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J. (Chairman), concurs and submits a brief opinion.
[1] Section 1, Act No. 4363 provides: ". . . "Preliminary' investigation of criminal actions for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such actions may he instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.'"
[2] Circular No. 27 dated April 5, 1965,
[3] Rollo. pp. 18-19.