P/SUPT. ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, PCI ANTONIO RICAFORT, SPO4 RICARDO G. ONG, AND SPO1 ARNULFO MEDENILLA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE GODOFREDO G. HERNANDEZ, SR., RESPONDENT.

Gutierrez versus Hernandez

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by four officers of the Criminal Investigation and Detective Division of the Philippine National Police against Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The officers had led a rescue operation of five young girls from a house in Pinamalayan, and later found themselves charged with grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling in the respondent judge's court. They complained that the judge issued warrants of arrest against them in inordinate haste, without preliminary investigation, and even set the cases for arraignment before any Information had been filed. The case matters because it fixes the mandatory procedure a municipal judge must follow before issuing a warrant of arrest during a preliminary investigation, and because it holds that a judge's years on the bench negate any claim of excusable ignorance of the Rules of Court.

Procedural History

The complainants filed a joint complaint-affidavit dated April 18, 2005 with the Office of the Court Administrator, charging the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law, impropriety, grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a judge, and lack of integrity to continue as a member of the judiciary. The respondent filed his Comment on May 31, 2005, and a Supplemental Comment on June 16, 2005. In its report of October 19, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator found the respondent guilty of gross ignorance of procedural rules, but recommended a fine of twenty thousand pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, considering that this was the only administrative complaint against him and that he had compulsorily retired on July 15, 2005. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative case, and the Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

On August 9, 2004, a television journalist accompanied one Ernesto Cruz to Camp Crame to complain that Cruz's minor daughter had been recruited in Malabon to work in a KTV bar in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The next day, the complainants, as officers of the Criminal Investigation and Detective Division, conducted a rescue operation, accompanied by Ernesto Cruz and a television crew. They rescued five young girls from the house of a certain Salvador Napolitano. A complaint for violation of the anti-trafficking law in relation to the child abuse law was thereafter filed before the City Prosecutor's Office of Malabon against a police officer, his wife, and another person, and warrants of arrest with no bail recommended were issued against them.

Several weeks later, the complainants were surprised to learn that cases for grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling had been filed against them, the journalist, and Ernesto Cruz, before the sala of the respondent judge. The rescued girls, except Ernesto Cruz's daughter, had retracted their complaint and instead filed charges against the rescue team. The complainants alleged that the girls had been threatened and coerced into signing the complaints and retractions at a beach resort, and that the respondent judge conferred there with the police officer, his companion, and a lawyer about the retraction and the new cases, and was later seen being entertained by two guest relations officers.

The complaints for qualified trespass to dwelling and grave coercion were filed on August 23, 2004 against Ernesto Cruz and five John Does. On August 24, 2004, a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Ernesto Cruz was filed, and the respondent immediately granted it and issued the warrant that same day. On September 8, 2004, a motion to amend the criminal complaint was filed, naming the members of the rescue team, and again on the very same day, warrants of arrest were hastily issued against the complainants and the journalist. No subpoena was ever issued to the complainants to allow them to file counter-affidavits. Later, the complainants received subpoenas commanding them to appear for arraignment, even though no Informations had yet been filed in court. The respondent denied the accusations, claimed he conducted a preliminary investigation, and asserted that the determination of probable cause was his sole prerogative as a judge.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure for issuing warrants of arrest without conducting a preliminary investigation and without personally determining probable cause.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for setting the criminal cases for arraignment without the requisite Informations having been filed in court.
• Whether or not the penalty of fine, rather than dismissal, is proper given that this is the respondent's first administrative case and that he has already compulsorily retired.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court requires a preliminary investigation in cases cognizable by the municipal trial courts for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day, without regard to the fine. It bears on the case because the charges against the complainants fell within this requirement, yet no preliminary investigation was conducted.

Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 3. Procedure. - The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner: (a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish the probable cause. (b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents. (c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of his section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.

This provision bears on the case because the complainants were never issued any subpoena to file their counter-affidavits before the warrants of arrest were issued against them.

Section 6, paragraph (b) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides:

(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. - When required pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in section 3 of this Rule. If his findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

This provision bears on the case because it sets the three conditions that must concur before a municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest during a preliminary investigation, and the respondent complied with none of them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure. There was indubitably no preliminary investigation conducted as required by the rules, since no subpoena was issued to the complainants for them to file counter-affidavits. The inordinate haste attending the issuance of the warrants of arrest belied the conduct of preliminary examination and personal determination of probable cause, in contravention of the Rules of Court, and constituted a denial of due process. The Court explained that under Section 6, paragraph (b) of Rule 112, three conditions must concur for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by a municipal judge during a preliminary investigation: the investigating judge must have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; he must be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and there must be a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. The issuance of the warrants in this case was clearly irregular since, not only did it lack a preliminary investigation, but the order granting the issuance did not show any finding of a need to place the complainants under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. The Court stressed that even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory for him to issue a warrant of arrest; he must further determine the necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody. The procedure is mandatory, and failure to follow it amounts to a denial of due process.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent displayed gross ignorance when he set the criminal cases for arraignment and hearing knowing fully well that no preliminary investigation had been conducted and no Informations had yet been filed before his court. This clearly violated the complainants' right, as accused, to due process, to be informed of the accusation against them, and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment. The Court laid down the standard: when the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it, and anything less is constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. Newly appointed judges are required to have a working knowledge of the Rules of Court before assuming their post, and after years of service, judges are expected to have become conversant with the Rules they apply and rely on every day in court. Years of service on the bench simply negate any notion that a judge could be grossly ignorant of procedural laws, and it was completely inexcusable for the respondent, who had been with the judiciary for twelve years, to have acted the way he did.

On the third issue, the Court held that compassion worked in the respondent's favor, given that this was his first administrative case after more than a decade of judicial service, and the circumstance that he had already compulsorily retired. The recommended penalty of fine was therefore in order.

Doctrine

A municipal judge who conducts a preliminary investigation may issue a warrant of arrest before the conclusion of the investigation only if three conditions concur: he has examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; he is satisfied that probable cause exists; and there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Even upon a finding of probable cause, the issuance of a warrant is not mandatory; the judge must further determine the necessity of immediate custody. The procedure under Section 6, paragraph (b) of Rule 112 is mandatory, and failure to follow it amounts to a denial of due process. Setting a case for arraignment before any Information has been filed violates the accused's right to due process, to be informed of the accusation, and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it, and anything less constitutes gross ignorance of the law; years of service on the bench negate any claim of excusable ignorance of procedural rules.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and ordered him to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Remember This

Memorize the three concurring conditions for a municipal judge's warrant of arrest during preliminary investigation, and the rule that a finding of probable cause does not make issuance mandatory. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory procedure under Rule 112 and the standard for gross ignorance of the law by a long-serving judge.