The instant administrative case arose when Artemio Sabatin, in an Affidavit-Complaint^[1] dated January 15, 2001, charged Judge Efren B. Mallare, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija, with gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, relative to Criminal Case No. 2751-N entitled People of the Philippines v. Artemio Sabatin for illegal possession of firearms.

The complainant, the accused in the said criminal case, alleged that pursuant to Search Warrant No. 017-N-2000 issued by the respondent judge, elements of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of General Natividad, Nueva Ecija under the command of P/Sr. Insp. Franklin Versoza Simon, entered his home and conducted a search thereon without his consent. The complainant averred that the search warrant in question was actually issued against his brother Pedrito Sabatin.  When the complainant pointed this out to the police, P/Sr. Insp. Simon merely instructed his men to erase the name "Pedrito" and replace it with "Artemio," making it appear that the warrant was, indeed, issued in the complainant's name.

The complainant further alleged that he was arrested and brought by the policemen to their station for investigation, but was later released.  He then received a subpoena after a few days, and it was only then that he learned that a criminal complaint had been filed against him for illegal possession of firearms.  The complainant, in turn, filed a complaint for illegal search, unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention and falsification of public document against P/Sr. Insp. Simon and his men before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

On August 5, 2000, the complainant filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. 017-N-2000 before the respondent judge's sala. After several postponements, the preliminary investigation was again set for November 8, 2001.  The complainant narrated the events as follows:

17. Na bago dumating and araw na iyon ay nakatanggap ako ng MOTION TO DISMISS, petsang Oktubre 12, 2000, para sa mga demanda ko [sic] ilalim ng I.S. No. H-3275-78 sa Cabanatuan City, galing sa inireklamo kong mga pulis, at kabilang sa mga UNANG PAGKAKATAON ay nahawakan ko ang kopya ng "SEARCH WARRANT NO. 017-N-2000", na maliwanag na nanggaling pala sa Branch 30 ng Regional Trial Court ng Cabanautan City, pero ang nakapirmang hukom ay si Judge EFREN B. MALLARE, bilang Acting Presiding Judge, gaya nang makikita sa kopya ng nasabing 'SEARCH WARRANT", na minarkahang ANNEX "K";
    
    
18. Sa pagka-diskubre naming ang Branch 30 ng Regional Trial Court ng Cabanatuan City ang nag-"issue" ng pinalsipikang SEARCH WARRANT, ako, sa pamamagitan ng aking abogada, ay duon nag-"file" ng MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT NO. 017-N-2000, kasabay ng kinakailangang i-"file" ko sa 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court ng Gen. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija, ng aking OMNIBUS MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT NO. 017-N-2000 AND TO TRANSFER ITS RECORDS TO BRANCH 30, RTC, CABANATUAN CITY, WITH ADDED MOTIONS TO SUSPEND PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE INSTANT CASE UNTIL RESOLUTION ON THIS PENDING INCIDENT AND TO FURNISH ACCUSED OF ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION N ITS PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, parehong may petsang Oktubre 30, 2000. …^[2]

The complainant was surprised when Judge Federico F. Fajardo, Jr. of the RTC of Cabanatuan City, Branch 30, issued the following Order on November 7, 2000, to wit:

This is a Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. 017-N-2000, dated July __, 2000 which appears to have been issued by Judge Efren B. Mallare. Upon a careful examination of the said Search Warrant, the caption thereof appears to be RTC-Branch 30, Cabanatuan City. However, the Presiding Judge of RTC, Br. 30 is the undersigned presiding judge and not Judge Efren B. Mallare. Judge Mallare is the Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of General Natividad and Llanera, Nueva Ecija.

The undersigned did not issue the questioned search warrant. He is not the Executive Judge who is the only one authorized to issue search warrants for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The Executive Judge of the RTC, Cabanatuan City is the Hon. Johnson Ballutay of RTC, Branch 25, Cabanatuan City.

Further, the questioned search warrant is not at all connected with any case pending in this Court, and therefore, this Court is not the proper forum for the quashing of the said search warrant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion to quash search warrant is hereby returned to the accused and his counsel, with the advise that it be referred to the Hon. Executive Judge, RTC, Cabanatuan City or Judge Efren B. Mallare for appropriate action.^[3]

The respondent judge thereafter issued an Order dated December 4, 2000, to wit:

After a careful perusal of the grounds relied upon by the accused in seeking for the quashal/dismissal of this case, the Court noticed that the same appeared to be well taken as the records would readily show that the Chief of Police, PNP, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija has applied for a search warrant against one Pedrito Sabatin alias Boyet and this has been admitted by the then Chief of Police Franklin Versoza Simon as per his comment dated 13 September 2000 (p. 27, rec.), although he misspelled the name Pedrito to Pablito by advancing reason that an error was committed when said first name was typewrote (sic) and in order to obviate any leakage thereof, a correction has been made from Pedrito/Pablito to Artemio Sabatin alias Boyet which led to the filing of the instant case.

In short, the search warrant issued by this court against one Pedrito Sabatin alias Boyet, after it has complied with the requisite for issuing search warrant (Sec. 3, Rule 126 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure), has not been fully implemented.

Furthermore, the case filed before this Court against one Artemio Sabatin y Miguel alias Boyet cannot be entertained by this court for this court has never issued any search warrant against said accused; and, therefore, any evidence taken from him maybe considered inadmissible for the search undertaken by the PNP of Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija, is considered unlawful.

WHEREFORE, finding the Motion To Quash/Dismiss Criminal Complaint meritorious, the same is hereby granted and this case is hereby dismissed.^[4]

According to the complainant, the respondent judge issued the questioned search warrant despite his lack of authority to do so in order to protect P/Sr. Insp. Franklin V. Simon. He also alleged that the respondent later on denied that he issued the questioned warrant in order to escape possible administrative sanctions.

In his Comment, the respondent averred that the normal procedure in criminal cases was to set them for preliminary examination in order to determine probable cause. However, in this case, the complainant (accused therein) through counsel practically waived the early resolution of the preliminary examination by filing several motions. Thus, the complainant cannot now question the delay in the early termination of the criminal case, for had it not been for the filing of said motions, the preliminary examination could have been terminated since September 2000 as provided for in the Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The respondent further stated, thus:

To recapitulate; therefore, the undersigned believes that being an Acting Presiding Judge of the 2^nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Gen. Natividad-Llanera, N.E., he has performed and [is] still performing, in good faith, the duties and responsibilities vested upon his office. In fact the records will speak for itself, and being the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, he has always been dedicated to his work and never committed any absence, and this fact can also be attested by the records of that Court which also speak for itself. Lastly, if ever the undersigned committed an error, the same had been committed in good faith and that the attached pertinent documents in the criminal case filed against Sabatin will readily reveal that the undersigned did not commit the accusation lodged against him in this administrative case.^[5]

The respondent then prayed that the instant administrative case be dismissed for lack of merit.

Upon the Court Administrator's recommendation that a formal investigation was necessary to resolve the factual issues, the case was referred to Executive Judge Tomas B. Talavera, Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City.^[6] The Executive Judge made the following findings:

To this Court, it appears that the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing this case. If he still has any interest in the prosecution of this case he should have notified this Court of his whereabouts by furnishing his new address so that he could have been notified about the ongoing investigation. In this regards (sic), this Court was not able to acquire any evidence that would substantiate the allegations of the complainant in the present administrative case. It will be impossible for this Court to rule in favor of the complainant lacking the latter's evidence, whether oral or documentary, not to mention his un-cooperation (sic) in the investigation of this administrative case.

Be it noted that it was the respondent who was religiously attending the investigation is borne out by the record of the case. On the other hand, complainant did not appear even once though on April 24, 2003, he was notified through his wife Vilma Sabatin evidencing his lack of interest to further prosecute this administrative case.^[7]

The Executive Judge apparently re-set the case for hearing for a total of four times, due to the complainant's repeated failure to appear.^[8] It was, thus, recommended that the present administrative case be dismissed for lack of evidence, as well as the complainant's lack of interest to prosecute the case.^[9]

We do not agree with the Investigating Judge.

The Court would like to stress that the dismissal or withdrawal of charges and the desistance of witnesses does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative case.^[10] The withdrawal of the complaint does not have the legal effect of automatically exonerating the respondent from any administrative disciplinary action. It does not operate to divest this Court with jurisdiction to determine the truth behind the matter stated in the complaint.^[11] Furthermore, the need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of the complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein.^[12]

Pursuant to the foregoing, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Judge to delve into the matter subject of the complaint, considering that the pleadings submitted by the complainant and the respondent, as well as the annexes thereof, were forwarded by the OCA precisely for his perusal. The Court, in numerous cases, has even acted upon administrative complaints filed by anonymous complainants on the following rationale:

Although the Court does not as a rule act on anonymous complaints, cases are excepted in which the charge could be fully borne by public records of indubitable integrity thus needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by the complainant, whose identity and integrity could hardly be material where the matter involved is of public interest.^[13]

The records in the instant case clearly show that the respondent is administratively liable.  A perusal of the questioned search warrant shows that although it was issued by Branch 30 of the RTC of Cabanatuan City, the signatory therein was the respondent. Judge Federico F. Fajardo, Jr. then presiding judge of Branch 30, Cabanatuan City denied that the questioned warrant was issued by him. The respondent then made a volte-face and denied that he ever issued any search warrant against the complainant in his Order dated December 4, 2000, where he also granted the complainant's motion to quash. Furthermore, in resolving the complainant's motion to quash almost four months after it was filed, the respondent violated Rule 3.05 of The Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and to act, one way or the other, on pending cases within the prescribed period therefor.^[14] Undue delay in resolving a pending motion constitutes gross inefficiency,^[15] and constitutes a less serious charge, punishable under Section 9 of Rule 140^[16] of the Rules of Court.

Judges are duty-bound to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence at all times.^[17] The pursuit of excellence must be their guiding principle. This is the least that judges can do to sustain the trust and confidence which the public reposed on them and the institution they represent.^[18] Judges are also human, although they are expected to rise above human frailties. At the very least, there must be an earnest and sincere effort on his part to do so. Considering that they are the visible representation of the law and of justice, the citizenry expects their official conduct as well as their personal behavior to always be beyond reproach.^[19]

WHEREFORE, for gross inefficiency and dishonesty, the respondent Judge Efren B. Mallare is meted a FINE of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000).

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1-5.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 3-4 (Emphasis supplied).

^[3] Id. at 108 (Emphasis supplied).

^[4] Id. at 111-112 (Emphasis supplied).

^[5] Id. at 57-58.

^[6] Id. at 148-149.

^[7] Id. at 167.

^[8] The hearings were set on March 14, March 27, April 10, and April 24, 2003. For the first two settings, the complainant was notified through registered mail, but these notices were returned with the notation "Return to Sender." The notices for the last two settings were made through personal service, but the process server was unable to find the complainant at his given address (Rollo, p. 166).

^[9] Rollo, p. 167.

^[10] Punzalan v. Plata, 372 SCRA 534 (2001).

^[11] Guray v. Bautista, 360 SCRA 489 (2001).

^[12] Dadap-Malinao v. Mijares, 372 SCRA 128 (2001).

^[13] Anonymous Complaint v. Gibson A. Araula, 81 SCRA 483 (1978).

^[14] Edgardo D. Balsamo v. Judge Pedro L. Suan,  A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656, September 17, 2003.

^[15] Rodolfo Macachor v. Rolindo Beldia, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-02-1724, June 12, 2003.

^[16] Sec. 9. Less Serious Charges. Less serious charges include:

1. Undue delay in rendering decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;

Section 11 (b) of the same Rule provides the penalty therefor:

B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:

1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
   
   
2. A fine of not more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

^[17] Evelio Peña v. Judge Orlando Martizano, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1451, May 30, 2003.

^[18] Judge Eliezer De Los Santos v. Judge Marvin Mangino, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1496, July 10, 2003.

^[19] Maria Cristina Olondriz Pertierra v. Judge Alberto L. Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799, September 12, 2003.