A.M. No. 07-8-207-MTC; January 31, 2008
RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ASUNCION, DAVAO DEL NORTE

FACTS

A judicial audit of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Asuncion, Davao del Norte, revealed that then Acting Judge Justino G. Aventurado had archived two criminal cases (Nos. 664 and 811) instead of forwarding their records to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office after preliminary investigation. Judge Aventurado archived the cases on the ground that the accused could not be arrested. When required to explain, he apologized for his mistake, attributing it to human error and noting his prior experience as a prosecutor. He submitted copies showing his successor had later forwarded the records.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Aventurado administratively liable for not following the regular procedure and for apparent ignorance of the law. It recommended a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), citing similar cases like Agcaoili v. Aquino, and warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Justino G. Aventurado is administratively liable for archiving the two criminal cases instead of transmitting the records to the prosecutor, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, Judge Aventurado is administratively liable. The Court agreed with the OCA’s finding that he failed to follow the proper procedure mandated by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the judge’s duty is to transmit the entire records of the case to the prosecutor within ten (10) days. Archiving the cases due to the accused’s non-arrest was improper; the cases should have been forwarded for the prosecutor’s appropriate action.
However, the Court disagreed with the OCA’s conclusion of “apparent ignorance.” It found this point unresolved, noting Judge Aventurado’s eight-year prosecutorial experience and his claim of only two errors out of thousands of cases. The Court also considered mitigating circumstances: this was his first offense, he immediately acknowledged his error and apologized, and he did not insist on a incorrect legal position. Comparing the case to Castro v. Bartolome, where a higher fine was imposed, the Court noted the absence of aggravating factors like prior penalties or untruthful defenses.
Consequently, while the recommended fine of P5,000 was consistent with Agcaoili, the mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction. Following the precedent in Ora v. Almajar, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.