MAXIMO UBAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE BENITO P. CINCO OF MARGOSATUBIG, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

Ever so often, the actuation of a judge would be stigmatized as
violative of a litigant’s rights, resulting in an administrative complaint for
abuse of authority and, possibly, to impress this Tribunal with the gravity of
his failing, add, for good measure, ignorance of the law.  So it was alleged in this case by a certain
Maximo Ubas, complainant, with Municipal Judge Benito P. Cinco of Margosatubig,
Zamboanga del Sur, as respondent.

The matter was referred to Executive Judge Melquiades S.
Sucaldito for investigation.  He set
forth the nature of the case thus: “This is a complaint for abuse of
authority and ignorance of the law filed by complainant Maximo Ubas against
respondent Benito P. Cinco, Municipal Judge of Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur.  Complainant alleges that the respondent, with
abuse of authority, terminated a criminal case two days before the day set for
trial and likewise rendered a decision thereon in excess of his authority as the offense charged is cognizable
by the Court of First Instance.  That as
an offended party, complainant further alleged that he was deprived of his
right to aid the prosecution by the premature termination of the case by the
respondent.  The respondent in his answer
denied the material allegations of the complaint, alleging among others, that a
case of Double Physical Injuries was filed by the Chief of Police and not that
of Frustrated Homicide, thus his Court has the juris­diction to try and decide the same; and that the
accused, while being already detained, asked for immediate trial, and after
arraignment, pleaded guilty to the crime charged and thereafter was sentenced
accordingly.”^[1]
According to Judge Sucaldito, the records showed that the complaint against a
certain Benjamin Manginsay was for double physical injuries filed by the Chief
of Police in the sala of
respondent Judge.  Thereafter, the
aforesaid accused appeared before the municipal court demanding immediate trial
of the case, and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the crime charged.  Respondent Judge, thereafter, rendered a
decision sentencing the accused.  It was
further stated in such report that there was thereafter executed by complainant
an affidavit acknow­ledging that there was justification for the action taken
by respon­dent Judge upon a voluntary plea of guilty being entered by the
accused.  When the administrative case
was called for investigation by Judge Sucaldito, “both complainant and
respondent appeared.  The respondent,
under oath in open court, affirmed all the allegations contained in his
affidavit.”^[2]

He summarized his findings thus: 
“From the facts and circumstances of the case, the undersigned
finds that the respondent acted within his competence and authority in accept­ing
a complaint, for Double Physical Injuries, and in sentencing the accused who entered
a plea of guilty thereon, thereby termi­nating the case.”^[3]
Necessarily, his recommendation was for “the dismissal of this
administrative case and the exoneration of the respondent.”^[4]
The then Acting Judicial Consultant of this Court, retired Justice Manuel P.
Barcelona, endorsed the aforesaid recommendation for exoneration.

No other outcome can be justified.  The complaints submitted to him indicated
that the offenses at the most amounted to physical injuries.  A case for frustrated homicide would not
lie.  When the accused, therefore,
pleaded guilty upon arraignment, he was within his rights, speedy trial being
one of the prized guarantees under the Constitution.^[5]
There was nothing left for respondent Judge then but to render judgment, which
he did in accordance with the law on the subject.  It is understandable likewise for complainant
to feel doubly aggrieved as for him the penalty was disproportionate to the
crime.  The administrative complaint,
therefore, must have resulted from such disappointment, not to say
frustration.  When he withdrew his
complaint, it must have been a realization, when he was in a less agitated state of mind,
that the Judge had no choice on the matter. 
He had to follow the law.

WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint is
dismissed.  Let a copy of this resolution
be entered on the record of respondent Judge.

Antonio, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Santos, and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

Barredo and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., on
leave.

^[1]
Report and Recommendation of Executive Judge Melquiades S. Sucaldito, 1.

^[2]
Ibid, 2.

^[3]
Ibid.

^[4]
Ibid.

^[5]
Article IV, Section 19, insofar as pertinent reads:  “In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused * * * shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial and public trial.”