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

Galila versus Villanueva

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by complainants Rosario Galila and Josefa Vallejo against Municipal Judge Serafin Villanueva of Jordan, in the sub-province of Guimaras, Iloilo. The complainants charged the respondent judge with abuse of authority and ignorance of the law in connection with criminal cases he handled. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one compact decision, the standards for a valid preliminary examination, the reasonableness of bail, and the proper place of commitment of a convicted accused. It also shows how the Supreme Court treats an administrative complaint that the complainants themselves later withdraw.

Procedural History

The complainants filed their administrative charges against the respondent judge. On July 6, 1970, they executed a joint affidavit stating that their complaint had been prepared by a lawyer in Iloilo City and that they signed it without any explanation from him, believing that their complaint was against Florentino Magalona, the person who had accused their sons. Because the complainants withdrew their charges, Executive District Judge Egmedio Nietes of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo did not conduct a formal investigation. He confined himself to an examination of the records of the cases involved, since everything concerning the administrative charges could be verified from those records. On the basis of the records, he considered the respondent's explanation satisfactory and recommended his exoneration. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which reviewed the records and decided the case in August 1974.

Facts

The first charge was abuse of authority. The complainants alleged that the respondent judge issued warrants of arrest against the accused without first conducting a thorough examination of the witnesses for the prosecution. They pointed to his failure to subpoena the barrio captain, who could supposedly testify that the accused took only two cavans of palay and not fifteen cavans as alleged in the criminal complaint.

The second charge was ignorance of the law. The complainants alleged that the respondent fixed excessive bail bonds, imposed a penalty not within the range prescribed by law, and committed the accused upon conviction to the municipal jail instead of the provincial jail.

The records showed that the respondent had conducted the requisite preliminary examination through searching questions and answers, as shown by the sworn statements of Florentino Magalona and Godofredo Ganancial. Convinced on the basis of those statements that probable cause existed, he saw no necessity to subpoena other witnesses. As to the barrio captain, the respondent explained that he had no knowledge of the existence of the affidavits the complainants referred to, and that, assuming they existed, they involved a matter of defense that could be presented during trial.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge committed abuse of authority in issuing warrants of arrest without first conducting a thorough examination of the prosecution's witnesses, particularly by failing to subpoena the barrio captain.
• Whether or not the respondent judge was ignorant of the law in fixing the bail bonds, in imposing the penalty, and in committing the accused upon conviction to the municipal jail instead of the provincial jail.

Applicable Provisions

Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, fixes the penalty for the theft charged, and it bears on whether the bail fixed was excessive:

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed if the value of the thing stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.

The decision also relies on the Department of Justice Circulars, Circular Number 47 dated July 5, 1946, and Circular Number 48 dated July 18, 1963, which recommend rates of bail. Their reasonableness had already received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in earlier cases, and they bear on the charge that the bail was excessive.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no abuse of authority. The respondent conducted the requisite preliminary examination through searching questions and answers, as shown by the sworn statements of the two prosecution witnesses. Having been convinced on the basis of those statements that there was probable cause to believe that the persons whose arrest was sought had committed the crime charged, there was no necessity for him to subpoena other witnesses, since he considered the testimony already presented sufficient. As to the barrio captain, the respondent had no knowledge of the existence of the affidavits, and assuming they existed, they involved a matter of defense which could be presented during the trial.

On the second issue, the Court likewise found no ignorance of the law. The bail of 3,000 pesos for each of the accused was not excessive, considering the imposable penalty for the crime of theft charged in the complaint, which is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, and the provisions of the Department of Justice Circulars. The Court noted that the reasonableness of the rates of bail recommended in those circulars had previously received its imprimatur. Finally, the record did not show that the accused were actually committed to the municipal jail. On the contrary, the respondent's letter of October 13, 1969 indicated that the accused were sent to the provincial warden for commitment to the provincial jail.

Doctrine

A preliminary examination is sufficient when the judge propounds searching questions and answers to the witnesses presented, and on the basis of their testimony is convinced that probable cause exists. The judge need not subpoena every other witness the complainant may name, because the determination of probable cause rests on the evidence he considers sufficient. Matters that the accused may raise in defense belong to the trial, not to the preliminary examination.

Bail is not excessive when it is measured against the imposable penalty for the crime charged and the rates recommended by the Department of Justice Circulars, whose reasonableness the Supreme Court has sustained. An administrative charge of ignorance of the law must rest on the records; where the record does not show the alleged error, as with the supposed commitment to the municipal jail, the charge fails.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against the respondent judge and authorized him to receive his retirement benefits and the money value of his accumulated and unused vacation and sick leaves.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a preliminary examination through searching questions and answers, sufficient to convince the judge of probable cause, satisfies the law, and bail measured by the imposable penalty and the Department of Justice Circulars is not excessive. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a valid preliminary examination and the standards for reasonable bail.