G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1451; May 30, 2003
Evelio Peña, Jerold Peña, Augusto Barbosa and Alvin Pilapil, complainants, vs. Judge Orlando A. Martizano, MCTC, San Jose-Presentacion, Camarines Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants were charged before respondent judge’s court in an Information dated May 5, 2001, alleging they willfully falsified official ballots for the May 11, 1998 elections by switching ballots cast in favor of a complainant with fake ones. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1645 for “Falsification of Public Documents” under the Revised Penal Code. Complainants filed a Motion for Inhibition, arguing the case was election-related and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for preliminary investigation. Respondent judge denied the motion, admitted the complaint, conducted his own preliminary investigation, and subsequently issued warrants of arrest against the complainants. The case was eventually dismissed after complainants filed a Motion to Quash.
Respondent judge, in his Comment, defended his actions. He asserted that the alleged act of switching ballots constituted falsification under the Revised Penal Code, regardless of the documents being election materials. He claimed his presence in court on a Saturday was part of his regular schedule across multiple salas and was not prearranged. He maintained that the warrants were regularly issued based on an urgent motion citing death threats, and that all proceedings complied with the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority in taking cognizance of and conducting a preliminary investigation on an election offense.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of ignorance of the law. The body of the complaint plainly described an election offense—specifically, the falsification of official ballots during an election. Under Section 2(2), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and settled jurisprudence, the Comelec possesses the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigations of all election offenses. A judge’s jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation is limited to offenses falling under the original jurisdiction of the MTC. Since election offenses are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of regional trial courts and, ultimately, the Comelec’s prosecutorial power, respondent judge had no authority to act on the complaint. His failure to recognize this clear jurisdictional rule constituted gross ignorance of the law. This liability was compounded by his issuance of arrest warrants based on a patently invalid preliminary investigation, demonstrating a disregard for procedural rules and elementary due process. The Court emphasized that judges are expected to keep abreast of basic legal principles, and respondent’s actions fell far short of this standard.