ROSARIO G. GALILA AND JOSEFA G. VALLEJO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE SERAFIN VILLANUEVA OF JORDAN, SUB-PROVINCE OF GUIMARAS, ILOILO, RESPONDENT.

1. Abuse of authority for issuing warrants of arrest against the accused
without first conducting a thorough examination of the witnesses for
the prosecution as shown by his failure to subpoena the barrio captain
who could testify that the accused took only two cavans of palay and not
fifteen cavans as alleged in the criminal complaint; and

2. Ignorance of the law for fixing excessive bail bonds, for imposing a
penalty not within the range prescribed by law, and for committing the
said accused upon conviction to the municipal jail instead of the
provincial jail.

On July 6, 1970, complainants executed a joint affidavit explaining that
their complaint against respondent was prepared by Atty. Nicanor
Sorongon of Iloilo City and that they were made to sign the same without
any explanation from the said lawyer and that they believed that their
complaint was against Florentino Magalona who accused their sons. As a
consequence of the withdrawal by the complainants of their charges,
Executive District Judge Egmedio V. Nietes of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo did not conduct a formal investigation but confined
himself to an examination of the records of the cases involved, as
everything that concerns the administrative charges could be verified
from the records, and on the basis thereof considered respondent’s
explanantion satisfactory and recommended his exoneration.

We have carefully reviewed the records of this case. As regards the
first charge, respondent conducted the requisite preliminary examination
through searching questions and answers as shown by the sworn
statements of Florentino Magalona and Godofredo Ganancial (Annexes “1”
and “2”). Having been convinced on the basis thereof of the existence of
a probable cause for believing that the persons whose arrest was sought
committed the crime charged, there was no necessity for respondent to
subpoena other witnesses, as he considered the testimony of those
presented already sufficient. As to the barrio captain, it appears that
complainants wanted said official to testify on their affidavits
admitting that they stole only two (2) sacks and not fifteen (15) sacks
of palay. Respondent explained that he had no knowledge of the existence
of those affidavits, and assuming that they existed they involve a
matter of defense which could be presented by them during the trial of
this case.

As to the second charge, it also appears that the bail of P3,000.00 for
each of the accused is not excessive, considering the imposable penalty
for the crime of theft charged in the complaint, which is
prision correctional in its minimum and medium
periods (Art. 309, Revised Penal Code) and the provisions of Circular
No. 47, dated July 5, 1946, and Circular No. 48 of July 18, 1963, of the
Department of Justice. The reasonableness of the rates of bail
recommended in the aforecited Department of Justice Circulars has
previously received this Court’s imprimatur in Edaño v.
Cea, L-6821, May 10, 1954, and Villasenor v.
Abano, L-23599, September 29, 1967. Finally, the record does
not show that the accused were actually committed to the municipal jail.
Upon the other hand, respondent’s letter of October 13, 1969 (Annex
“3”) indicates that said accused were sent to the provincial warden for
commitment to the provincial jail.

WHEREFORE, the aforecited charges against respondent
are hereby dismissed and he is hereby authorized to receive the
retirement benefits and the money value of accumulated and unused
vacation and sick leaves due to him.

Makalintal, Acting C.J., Ruiz Castro, Fernando Teehankee,
Barredo, Makasiar, and Esguerra, JJ.,
concur,
Zaldivar, J., is on leave.