SANDOVAL V MANALO
FACTS:
On or about 12am of May, inside his house in Coron-Province,Palawan, Jermaine Echague shot Alexander Sandoval (hitting the right part of his nose bridge) using an unlicensed 38 caliber revolver, Smith Wesson, without serial number, snub nose (paltik.) The latter died. Thereafter, Echague, in order to hide the body, removed the body of the victim, tied it up with an empty oxygen tank and threw it into the sea. Antonio Sandoval filed a criminal complaint for murder with the MCTC of Palawan against Echague for killing his son. Judge Manalo issued a warrant for the arrest of Echague and recommended no bail. Since Echague did not file the required counter-affidavits and evidence to support his case, the judge issued an order declaring that Echague had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and finding a prima facie against him. He forwarded the case to the Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
Chief of Police also filed against Echague a criminal case for illegal possession of firearms (paltik used) and on the same date, Manalo issued a warrant of arrest for Echague. It seemed however that Echague could not be found nor located. The victim’s father, Antonio Sandoval, filed a complaint against the presiding judge (Manalo.) The complaint charges the judge with ignorance of law, dereliction of duty and grave abuse of authority for hastily lifting the warrant of arrest previously issued without giving the prosecution reasonable time to file any pleading regarding the motion. Judge Manalo contends that he only lifted the warrant of arrest based on humanitarian considerations. (Echague was only 18 ½ years old; he voluntarily surrendered; his counsel attested that releasing him would not frustrated the ends of justice.) He also contends that as an investigating judge, he had the power to exercise his discretion in issuing warrants in cases during preliminary investigation. Subsequently, Antonio Sandoval filed a desistance to the administrative complaint against the judge stating that he is satisfied with the outcome of the criminal case. He also stated that he didn’t know that what his counsel let him sign was a complaint against a judge. He thought that it was just an affidavit to be filed in court in order that the accused would be put back to prison. He did not know that it was a complaint against the judge since it was written in English.
ISSUE:
Whether the acts of Judge Manalo renders him liable regardless of the desistance of Sandoval?
HELD:
YES. Desistance of Sandoval does not affect the truth and integrity of the affidavit-complaint against Judge Manalo. Judge Manalo did not even dispute the facts alleged therein. Disciplinary actions against public officers and employees do not involve purely private or personal matters. They are impressed with public interest by virtue of a public trust character of the public office. Administrative actions are not therefore made to depend upon the will of every complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. A mere reprimand is not enough since Manalo did not commit a mere error of judgment but has disregarded the laws and rules governing preliminary investigation of criminal cases cognizable by the RTC. Having thus determined a prima facie case for murder against Echague, Judge Manalo has no legal justification toe release the accused on a mere plea of the latter as the provision that “it will not frustrate the ends of justice” no longer applies after the conclusion of his preliminary investigation. Judge Manalo deliberately set aside the aforementioned laws and rules on preliminary investigation to accommodate the accused making him liable for misconduct or grave abuse of authority or dereliction of duty. He was fined and warned.
