A.M. No. RTJ-25-092 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-4755-RTJ] - EDRALYN PANGILINAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. LELU P. CONTRERAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF VIRAC, CATANDUANES, BRANCH 43.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , it is respectfully RECOMMENDED for the consideration of the Honorable Court that the instant administrative case against respondent HON. LELU P. CONTRERAS , former Presiding Judge, [Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Virac, Catanduanes,] be DISMISSED for lack of merit. [47] (Emphasis in the original) The Issue Should Judge Contreras be held administratively liable? The Ruling of the Court It is settled that in administrative proceedings for disciplinary actions against judges, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [48] The complainants have the burden of proving their allegations in their complaints with this quantum of proof. In this case, while the Court agrees that Pangilinan failed to support by substantial proof her allegations in her Complaint, the Court, nonetheless, deems it proper to modify the JIB's ruling. Judge Contreras is not guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, and Grave Abuse of Authority with respect to her issuance of the search warrant Pangilinan charged Judge Contreras with Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge for the alleged delay in the issuance of the subject warrant, and that because of this delay, the individuals who may be responsible for the drug laboratory were able to escape. Additionally, Pangilinan also accused Judge Contreras of committing Grave Abuse of Authority when she went to the laboratory to personally inspect and see the place to be searched, instead of immediately issuing the warrant. [49] The Court does not agree. The right of every individual against unreasonable searches and seizures in our jurisdiction is inviolable. This is clearly defined under Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution, which reads: SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. [50] In determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, the examining judge must make probing and exhaustive, not merely routine o