ADORACION TUNA, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. SERGIO Y. NAZARENO, MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF TAGBINA, SURIGAO DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

Administrative case against Municipal Judge Sergio Nazareno of Tagbina, Surigao del Sur, for failure to
transmit to the Court of First Instance of Surigao
del Sur the records of Criminal Case No. 36 (for
murder) filed with the Municipal Court of Tagbina, presided
over by respondent Judge Sergio Nazareno after the
respondent had conducted the second stage of the preliminary investigation, as
required by Section 12, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The said Criminal Case No. 36 was filed by the Chief of Police of
Tagbina on September 1, 1971, charging Wen­nie Doe, Fred Doe, and Gildo
Doe for having attacked and killed one Leoncio Tuna,
Jr. on August 15, 1971, at barrio San Vicente, Tagbina,
Surigao del Sur.^[1]

After the preliminary examination, Gildo
Doe, subsequently identified as Herminigildo Coritana, was arrested on September 3, 1971. 
During the second stage of the said preliminary investigation conducted
on November 2, 1971,
prosecution witness Pedro Quenencia recanted his
testimony, saying that he was forced to do so by one Patrolman Domingo Lemana.  As a result,
the respondent Judge issued an order dismissing the case against the accused Herminigildo Coritana.^[2]

On March 21, 1972, Adoracion Tuna,
sister of the deceased Leonicio Tuna, Jr., addressed
a letter to the Secretary of Justice asking for the latter’s help in bringing
his brother’s killers to justice, and stating among others, that she went to Tagbina on February 22, 1972 to inquire about the status of
the said case and the respondent Judge told her that he dismissed the case for
lack of interest.^[3]
The letter was indorsed to the respondent Judge for comment^[4]
and on June 25, 1972, the
respondent replied giving reasons for the dismissal of the case.^[5]

Upon receipt of the reply, it was determined that the respondent
Judge had failed to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court
of First Instance of Surigao del Sur
and was consequently ordered by the Secretary of Justice to explain why he
failed to comply with the provisions of Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court.^[6]

The respondent Judge answered, as required, impliedly admitting
non-compliance with the rule and stating that while he gave instructions to the
Clerk of his court to transmit the records to the Court of First Instance,
compliance cannot be made because of lack of funds to defray the expenses.^[7]

Upon consideration of the case, the Secretary of Justice
recommended to the President the suspension of the respondent for six (6)
months without pay.^[8]

After the transfer of the administrative supervision of the
courts to this Court, this Court, on March
12, 1974, referred the case to the Executive Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Surigao del Sur
for investigation, report and recommendation on the respondent’s failure to
comply with Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.^[9]

On November 12, 1974,
the investigating judge found the respondent guilty of delay and recommended
the imposition of a reprimand upon the respondent in view of the desistance of Adoracion Tuna.^[10]

The Judicial Consultant agrees with the finding of the
investigator but recommends a suspension of fifteen (15) days without pay.

Indeed, the respondent judge is guilty of unreasonable delay in
transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance
of Surigao del Sur, as required
by Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. 
The preliminary investigation of one of the accused in said case was
terminated on November 2, 1971,
but it was only on September 29, 1972
when the respondent judge remanded the records, after having been reminded by
the Secretary of Justice to do so on August
17, 1972.  His claim of lack
of funds to justify his non-compliance with Section 12, Rule 112 of the Rules
of Court is patently untenable because it appears that the amount of P150.00
was appropriated for his court and of this amount only P109.01 had been
spent.  For sure, the amount of P40.99
was sufficient to defray the expenses of transmitting the records to the Court
of First Instance.  Considering that no
prejudice had been caused thereby, the imposition of a fine equivalent to his
salary for two (2) months, is sufficient.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
respondent judge to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for two (2) months.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, Aquino, and
Santos, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo, p. 16.

^[2] Rollo, p. 67.

^[3] Id.,
p. 6.

^[4] Id.,
p. 9.

^[5] Id.,
p. 12.

^[6] Id.,
p. 15.

^[7] Id.,
p. 16.

^[8] Id.,
p. 1.

^[9] Id.,
p. 70.

^[10] Id.,
p. 176.