A.M. No. MTJ-16-1877 (Formerly OCA IPI No.

13-2635-MTJ), June 13, 2016

MOAMAR PANGANDAG, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE OTTOWA B. ABINAL,

DECISION

SERENO, C.J.:

This administrative case concerns the complaint filed against Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) Judge
Ottowa B. Abinal for gross ignorance of the law, abuse and usurpation of jurisdiction, conduct
prejudicial to the interest of public service, and bias. The complaint alleges that he did not have
jurisdiction to take cognizance of a criminal complaint for grave threats, since the offense carried the
penalty of reclusion temporal. The complaint further asserts that Judge Abinal issued a warrant of
arrest despite knowing that the private complainant therein was his niece.

Facts

Complainant Moamar Pangandag was criminally charged1 with grave threats for allegedly threatening
to commit the crime of murder against a certain Monaoray "Nahara" Abdullah and her companions. The
Information was filed before the sala of Presiding Judge Abinal of the Mulondo, Maguing, Lumba-
Bayabao, and Taraka MCTC in Lanao del Sur. Upon finding the existence of probable cause, he issued a
warrant of arrest against Pangandag and two others. However, 15 days later, Judge Abinal voluntarily
inhibited himself from hearing the case because of his relationship to Abdullah, who was his niece.2 The
case was eventually transferred to the presiding judge of the Marawi City MTCC.3 The criminal
complaint was later on dismissed in light of the prosecution's Motion to Withdraw Information based on
the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainant.4chanrobleslaw

Pangandag is now before this Court to complain against the actions of Judge Abinal. He insists that the
MCTC did not have jurisdiction over the case, since the crime he was charged with carried the penalty
of reclusion temporal, a prison term that exceeded six years. Further, it is argued that Judge Abinal
should have disqualified himself from hearing the case in light of his relationship to the private
complainant, who was his third-degree relative by consanguinity.

In his Comment,5 Judge Abinal explained that the MCTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
criminal case, since the Information did not contain any allegation that the accused demanded money
or imposed a condition. Because of the absence of this assertion, he was of the opinion that Pangandag
was only being charged with the second form of grave threats, which merely carried the penalty
of arresto mayor. With regard to the second issue, while Judge Abinal admits that private complainant
was indeed his niece, he stresses that this relationship was the reason why he voluntarily inhibited
from the case immediately after issuing the warrant. He argues that he did not have to inhibit himself
from deciding whether to issue a warrant of arrest, as it was his ministerial duty to do so.

Issues

The issues to be resolved by the Court are whether Judge Abinal is administratively liable for taking
cognizance of the criminal complaint for grave threats against Pangandag even if (a) the MCTC has
limited jurisdiction over criminal offenses; and (b) the private complainant was his niece.

Ruling

We adopt the recommendation6 of the Office of the Court Administrator and rule that Judge Abinal was
not administratively liable when he took cognizance of the criminal complaint. He merely relied on the
words of the Information, which do not appear to accuse Pangandag of committing grave threats
accompanied by a demand for money or an imposition of any other condition. The Information reads as
follows:7
x x x accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other moved by their personal
and political resentment which they entertained against Monaoray "Nahara" Abdullah and her
companions with an infliction upon them of a wrong amounting to a crime, when they were on
their way to Balintao Elementary School to cast their votes, the said accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threatened them by shouting and firing their guns saying
that they will kill the latter and her companions but the offenders failed to attain the purpose.
(Emphases supplied)
The absence of an allegation pertaining to a demand for money or an imposition of any other condition
would be relevant to the jurisdiction of the MCTC. Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code clearly
provides that the penalty for grave threats without a condition shall be arresto mayor, that is,
imprisonment for the maximum period of six months.8 Since Section 32(2) of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act9 expressly grants MCTCs exclusive original jurisdiction "over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years," we cannot fault Judge Abinal for believing that the
MCTC could take cognizance of the criminal case. Without ultimately deciding on the merits of the
criminal complaint in this administrative proceeding, we rule that there is no basis to hold Judge Abinal
administratively liable for this charge.

We find, however, that Judge Abinal indeed violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to the
Rules of Court by acting on the criminal complaint and issuing a warrant of arrest despite his
relationship to the private complainant. Rule 137 of the Rules of Court clearly disqualifies judges from
hearing cases if they are related to one of the parties within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity. As expressed in Section 5(c), Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges should not
take part in proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including those in
which a party litigant is related to them by consanguinity or affinity. We stress that this disqualification
rule was put into place to preserve the people's faith and confidence in the courts of justice.10 Thus,
judges should not preside over a case in which they are not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and
independent.11chanrobleslaw

The rule on disqualification remains even if the present case merely involves the determination of
probable cause and the eventual issuance of a warrant of arrest. Contrary to the insistence of Judge
Abinal, the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not merely ministerial in nature. Pursuant to Section 6(b),
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court,12 judges are required to personally examine private complainants and
witnesses, as well as any supporting documents that they may produce. The purpose is to determine
whether there is probable cause to believe that the persons being prosecuted are guilty of the crime
charged. Afterwards, judges would again be required to exercise judicial discretion to ascertain if there
is a necessity to place the accused in custody so that the ends of justice would not be
frustrated.13 MCTC judges may even choose to merely issue a summons, instead of a warrant of arrest,
if they do not find it necessary to place the accused under custody even after the determination of the
existence of probable cause.

By issuing a warrant of arrest, Judge Abinal is assumed to have applied Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court, which required the examination of his own niece to determine the existence of probable
cause. Further, he is also deemed to have relied on her testimony to determine whether the ends of
justice necessitated that  Pangandag be placed in custody, instead of merely issuing summons to
compel him to appear before the court. Clearly, Judge Abinal should not have participated in any of
these courses of action, as he might have appeared biased in issuing the warrant of arrest that would
ensure that the accused in the case filed by the judge's own niece would stand trial. Judge Abinal
should have disqualified himself the moment he read the criminal complaint containing the name of his
relative. He committed an administrative offense once he took cognizance of the case and issued a
warrant of arrest.

In similar cases,14 We have imposed a fine on judges who failed to inhibit themselves from sitting in
cases - even as early as the preliminary investigation stage - in which one of the parties was their
relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. In Paderanga v. Paderanga,15 We ruled that
the gross ignorance and disregard of the rule on compulsory disqualification constitutes a serious
charge pursuant to Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 11 thereof, a fine of
"more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00" may be imposed if the respondent is guilty of a
serious charge. Since in Paderanga this Court found an aggravating circumstance that impelled Us to
impose a fine of P40,000, We rule in this case that a fine of P25,000 would be more appropriate in
view of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

WHEREFORE, Judge Ottowa B. Abinal, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mulondo, Maguing, Lumba-
Bayabao, and Taraka, Lanao del Sur, is found GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR
PROCEDURE for failing to immediately inhibit himself in People v. Gamama, Criminal Case No. 13-
694-MG. Accordingly, the Court imposes the penalty of FINE in the amount of P25,000 with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar infraction shall be penalized more severely.
This case is hereby ordered RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter.
SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary