After conducting a preliminary examination on a complaint for murder respondent municipal judge ordered the arrest of the policeman accused therein, and after hearing, denied the petition for bail filed by the accused. In both the preliminary examination and the hearing of petition for bail, a certain Patrolman Tereso Adaro testified. Subsequently, the fiscal amended the complaint by including Patrolman Adaro (the aforenamed prosecution witness) as defendant. Respondent judge conducted the preliminary examination on the amended complaint, but finding no prima facie case against Adaro to warrant his inclusion, the judge rejected the complaint. The respondent’s resolution provoked the accused policeman to file the instant administrative complaint for supposed ignorance of the law, partiality and grave coercion. The investigating judge recommended dismissal of the administrative case and exoneration of respondent in which recommendation the Judicial Consultant concurred.

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; ABSENCE OF MALICE AND BIAS NOT SHOWN. — Where a municipal judge — after conducting a preliminary examination on an amended complaint for murder which sought to include a prosecution witness as accused — rejected the amended complaint on the ground that the prosecution evidence did not warrant the inclusion of said accused, and there is no evidence showing the respondent was animated with malice and bias, the administrative of law, partiality and grave abuse of discretion will be dismissed.

In Criminal Case No. 1727 of the municipal court of Siniloan, Laguna, Patrolmen Rodolfo Gamara, Clodualdo Castro and Ignacio. Flores, together with Modesto Gamara, were charged by an assistant provincial fiscal with double murder and atendado in connection with the killing of the chief of police and a councilor of that municipality.

Municipal Judge Geminiano B. Almeda, after conducting a preliminary examination wherein Patrolmen Tereso Adaro and Claudio Gemanel testified, ordered the arrest of the four accused. Adaro and Gemanel also testified for the prosecution at the hearing of the petitions for bail filed by Flores and Modesto Gamara. Judge Almeda denied the petitions in a resolution dated June 15, 1972.

On June 26, 1972 the fiscal filed an amended complaint. The amendment consisted of the inclusion of Patrolman Adaro (the aforenamed prosecution witness) as a new defendant. Judge Almeda conducted a preliminary examination on the amended complaint for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was a prima facie case against Adaro. In that preliminary examination the prosecution presented as sole witness Patrolman Gemanel who merely reiterated his statement at the hearing on the petition for bail. In that statement he did not finger Adaro as one of the killers of the chief of police and the municipal councilor.

On July 8, 1972 Judge Almeda ordered the fiscal to present some more evidence to substantiate the charge against Adaro. The fiscal manifested that he had no further evidence to prove the complicity of Adaro in the killing. He reintroduced the sworn statements of Concepcion Bernardo and the three accused policemen.

In an eight-page resolution dated July 27, 1972 Judge Almeda rejected the amended complaint and held that the prosecution’s evidence did not warrant the inclusion of Adaro. He surmised that the three accused policemen wanted Adaro to be included as a defendant because Adaro had testified against them.

That resolution provoked the three accused policemen to file on October 10, 1972 with the Secretary of Justice the instant administrative complaint against Judge Almeda for supposed ignorance of the law, partiality and grave abuse of discretion. Judge Almeda submitted a verified answer to the charges which he characterized as baseless and as an act of harassment. (He is now an assistant provincial fiscal.)

District Judge Florentino M. Villanueva investigated the charges. He recommended the dismissal thereof and the exoneration of respondent Almeda. The Judicial Consultant concurred in that recommendation.

The issue is whether respondent Almeda committed any irregularity in holding that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against Patrolman Adaro or whether he is liable to disciplinary action for his actuations in the preliminary investigation.

After a careful perusal of the record, we find that the charges against the respondent are unfounded. There is no evidence that he was animated with malice and bias in not allowing the inclusion of Patrolman Adaro as a defendant in the double murder and atendado case. Judge Villanueva found that the evidence was insufficient to warrant Adaro’s indictment. According to the investigator, the fact that the complainants herein were willing to drop the charges if the fiscal would sustain the theory that Adaro was not implicated in the killing showed that they were only fishing for evidence and were not sincere in filing the charges.

It is relevant to state that although Judge Almeda did not admit the amended criminal complaint including Adaro as a defendant, the herein complainants could have asked the provincial fiscal to reinvestigate the case after the record was elevated to the Court of First Instance and renewed their petition for Adaro’s prosecution (People v. Perez, 110 Phil. 214). Such a reinvestigation was in fact conducted by the provincial fiscal.

Wherefore, the instant administrative case is dismissed. So ordered.

Makalintal, C.J. Fernando, Barredo and Martin, JJ., concur.

Antonio and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., are on leave.

Martin, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.