Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Uy Vs Javellana
Uy Vs Javellana
Uy vs Javellana
Facts: An administrative case was filed against Judge Javellana arising from a verified
complaint for “gross ignorance of the law and procedures, gross incompetence, neglect of duty,
conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge, grave misconduct and others,” filed by Public
Attorneys Uy and Bascug of the Public Attorneys Office.
The complaint/allegations involve cases decided and/or were handled by Judge Javellana and
his alleged business relation as co-agent in a surety company. In People vs Lopez, a case of
malicious mischief, Judge Javellana did not apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
and, instead, conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, then set the case for arraignment and pre-trial, despite confirming that
therein complainant and her witnesses had no personal knowledge of the material facts alleged
in their affidavits, which should have been a ground for dismissal of said case.
ISSUE/S: Whether Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure.
RULING :Yes. Without any showing that the accused in People vs Lopez, et al were charged
with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in Article 328 of the Revised
Penal Code the appropriate penalty for the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods which under Article 329(a) of the Revised Penal Code, would be
imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. Clearly, this case should be
governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Also, the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure does not provide for a preliminary investigation prior to the filing of a criminal case
under Rule 16, but in People vs. Lopez, Judge Javellana conducted a preliminary investigation
even when it was not required or justified.
“How commenced. – The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be
etiher by complaint or by information; Provided, however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in
Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information, except when the offense
cannot be prosecuted de oficio.”
On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure only
requires that a preliminary investigation be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. As has been previously established herein,
the maximum penalty imposable for malicious mischief in People vs. Lopez, et al is just six (6)
months.