AGUILAR INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ANASTACIO ZAMUCO, MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF AGUILAR-­BUGALLON, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

In a complaint dated November 15, 1978, Pedro C. Gelido, Station Commander of the
Aguilar Integrated National Police, Pangasinan, charged Judge Anastacio Zamuco
of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, with habitual
absenteeism and gross ignorance of the law.^[1]

The complaint alleged that there were over 100 cases which
pending before the Municipal Court of Aguilar­Bugallon as a result of habitual
absenteeism of the Municipal Judge; and that some of these cases had been
pending for more than five (5) years because the sche­duled hearing thereof had
been postponed several times in view of the failure of the respondent judge to
attend said hearings.

The respondent judge was likewise charged with gross ignorance of
the law in that (1) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 on the mere affidavit of desistance and motion to
dismiss filed by the complainant therein with­out the knowledge and
intervention of the fiscal; (2) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave
threat on the ground that there
is no such crime because the threat was made in the absence of the person
threatened; (3) he assumed jurisdiction over Criminal Case
No. A­-001 which was triable by the Military Tribunal; and he prohibited the
Station Commander of Aguilar, Pangasinan to administer oaths.

In his comment dated May 21, 1979,^[2]
the respon­dent judge alleged that he had never been absent from his office
except on those days when he had to attend seminars and other official
functions, and that most of the cases which were pending in the Municipal Court
of Aguilar-Bugallon were criminal cases involving non-pay­ment of the Masagana
loans wherein many of the accused were at-large.

As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the
respondent judge explained that (1) he dismissed Criminal Case No. 1848 only on
the basis of the affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss filed by the com­plainant
therein because no fiscal had entered his appea­rance in said case; (2)
Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat was dismissed by him for the reason
that the complainant therein, Patricio Daño, Sr. was not present in his house
when the alleged grave threat was made by the accused; (3) he conducted the
first stage of the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. A-001 for
violation of General Order No. 6 (carrying of fire­arms outside the residence),
but it was not his inten­tion to assume jurisdiction over said case because he
knew that the same was triable before the Military Tribunal and that he could
not conduct the second stage of the preliminary investigation because the
accused was not apprehended, hence no report was submitted to the Secretary of
National Defense; and (4) he did not prohibit the Station Commander of Aguilar,
Pangasinan to administer oaths as in fact the complaint in Criminal Case No.
A-001 and the affidavits attached thereto were subscribed and sworn to before
the said Station Commander.

In a memorandum dated July 29, 1981, Deputy Court Administrator
Romeo D. Mendoza directed Atty. Romanito Amatong, a lawyer in this Court, to
examine and audit the case records and docket of the Municipal Court of
Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan.

After making a physical inventory of all cases pending in the
Municipal Court of Aguilar-Bugallon, Atty. Romanito Amatong submitted a
memorandum dated August 13, 1981,^[3]
wherein he reported that as of the date of inspection, there were only 179
criminal cases, 11 civil cases and 1 special proceeding, or a total of 191
pending cases in the Municipal Court of Aguilar-­Bugallon, Pangasinan. Atty.
Amatong concluded that Judge Zamuco had not been lagging behind in the disposal
of cases contrary to complainant’s allegations.

As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law, Atty.
Amatong reported that: (1) the respondent judge dismissed Criminal Case No.
1848 for slander by deed on the basis of the affidavit of desistance and motion
to dismiss filed by the complainant, Perlita
Fajardo, inasmuch as no fiscal had entered his appea­rance in this case in
accordance with the ruling in People vs. Beriales, 76 SCRA 42; (2) the
respondent judge dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 on the ground that the
complainant, Patricio Daño, was not present in his house when the alleged crime of grave threat was committed;
(3) the respondent judge assumed jurisdic­tion over Criminal Case No. A-001
which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal, only for
the purpose of conducting the preliminary investi­gation; and (4) the
respondent judge did not prohibit the Station Commander of Aguilar from
administering oaths.

From the facts of record, it cannot be said that the respondent
had a clogged docket by reason of his absences. Most of the criminal cases pending had been archived because the
persons charged of non-payment of the Masagana loans could not be arrested
inasmuch as their whereabouts
were not known.

No fiscal entered his
appearance in Criminal Case No. 1848 of the Municipal Court of
Aguilar-Bugallon. Hence, the respondent
judge could dismiss the said case on the basis of the affidavit of desistance
and the motion to dismiss of the complainant.

Municipal Courts had the authority to conduct the preliminary
investigation of violations of the law on firearms and explosives provided that
the Municipal Judge submitted a report to the Secretary of National Defense
through the Provincial Commander outside the Greater Manila area. The accused was not apprehended, hence, the
respondent judge could not conduct the second stage of the preliminary
investigation and no report to the Secretary of National Defense was submitted.

It is a fact that
the respondent judge accepted the affidavits attached to the complaint in
Criminal Case No. A-001, all subscribed and sworn to before the Station
Commander of the Aguilar Integrated National Police.

The respondent judge, however, committed an error when he
dismissed Criminal Case No. 2256 for grave threat on the ground that the
complainant was not present in his house at the time the accused shouted that
he would kill the complainant. The
crime of threat may be committed by indirect challenge to fight even if the com­plainant
was absent when the threat was made. There is, however, no showing that
the respondent judge dismissed the case
for grave threat with a deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. Under
the established facts of the case, the respondent judge should be reprimanded.

However, the respondent, Judge Anastacio Zamuco, had reached the
retirement age of 70 years on April 27, 1981.

WHEREFORE, the respondent judge, Hon. Anastacio Zamuco,
formerly of the Municipal Court of Aguilar-­Bugallon, Pangasinan, is found
guilty of erroneously dismissing Criminal Case No. 2256 of the Municipal Court
of Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan, for grave threat and is hereby reprimanded.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Plana, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 8-13.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 21-26.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 37-45.