ZENAIDA J. CASTRO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE NICASIO V. BARTOLOME, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA. MARIA, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

Castro versus Bartolome

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Zenaida Castro against Judge Nicasio Bartolome, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The complainant is the mother of an accused in criminal cases for rape and violation of a special law, and she charges the judge with grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust order, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. She claims that he issued a warrant of arrest against her son without conducting the searching questions and answers required in a preliminary examination, and that he falsified the transcript of the proceedings. The case matters because it fixes the administrative consequences of a judge's failure to perform a ministerial duty in preliminary investigation, and it reminds every judge that unfamiliarity with the rules is itself a ground for discipline.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator. The Supreme Court referred the case to Executive Judge Guillermo Agloro of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, for investigation, report, and recommendation. After the requisite hearings, the investigating judge submitted his report and found the respondent administratively liable, although he found no positive evidence that the transcript had been doctored or falsified. The Court then resolved the case in the exercise of its administrative supervision over judges, agreeing with the findings of the investigating judge.

Facts

The complainant's son, Edwin Castro, was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan with rape and violation of a special law. The respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation. According to the complainant, he asked no searching questions and hastily issued a warrant of arrest, and no transcript of the proceedings accompanied the records when they were forwarded to the provincial prosecutor. A transcript later appeared, and she insisted it had been falsified because no searching questions had ever been asked.

The respondent denied the charges. He averred that he personally examined the private complainant and conducted searching questions. He admitted that the transmittal of the records was delayed, but blamed the Clerk of Court, and he insisted that the transcript of the searching questions and answers stays with the municipal court unless the investigating prosecutor requires it.

The investigating judge found that the transcript was transmitted to the provincial prosecutor only on the fourteenth of May, 2003, long after the preliminary investigation. He found no positive evidence of falsification, but concluded that the respondent had failed to abide by the rule requiring transmittal of the resolution and the entire records within ten days. The Court noted that the respondent had previously been sanctioned for gross ignorance of the law and reprimanded for making untruthful statements in defending himself against an administrative charge.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for undue delay in transmitting the records of the case, including the transcript of the preliminary investigation, to the provincial prosecutor.
• Whether or not the respondent judge may escape liability by pointing to the lapses of the court personnel under him.
• Whether or not the complainant's charge of falsification of the transcript was established.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 5. Resolution of investigating judge and its review. Within ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for appropriate action. The resolution shall state the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the record of the case which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the transcripts of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.

This is the exact duty the respondent failed to perform, and the rule expressly lists the transcripts of the proceedings as part of the record to be transmitted.

Section 9, in relation to Section 11, of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies and penalizes the offense. The Court states the penalty as follows:

Undue delay in transmitting the records of a case is classified as a less serious charge under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

This fixes the range from which the Court drew the penalty it imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is administratively liable. After the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, it is the duty of the investigating judge to transmit the entire records of the case within ten days, and the present rule, unlike the old one, specifically mentions the transcript of stenographic notes as part of the record to be transmitted. The Court stressed that this transmittal is a ministerial duty. Preliminary investigation is an executive, not a judicial function, performed by the judge only as an exception because there are not enough prosecutors, and the judge's findings are subject to review by the provincial prosecutor. The performance of this non-judicial function does not place judges beyond the disciplinary power of the Court. The respondent, by his own admission, failed to comply, and worse, he insisted erroneously that there was no need to elevate the transcript.

On the second issue, the Court held that he cannot escape liability by pointing to the lapses or negligence of the court personnel under him, because the proper and smooth functioning of his sala is primarily his responsibility as presiding judge. The Court added that a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, must be faithful to the law, and must keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence, since ignorance thereof can easily be the mainspring of injustice.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the investigating judge that there was no positive evidence that the transcript had been doctored or falsified. The charge of falsification therefore did not prosper.

Doctrine

First, the investigating judge has a ministerial duty to transmit to the provincial or city prosecutor, within ten days after the preliminary investigation, his resolution together with the entire record of the case, which expressly includes the transcripts of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation. Second, this duty is executive in character, but its breach is nonetheless subject to the disciplinary power of the Supreme Court. Third, a judge cannot hide behind the negligence of his court personnel, for the proper functioning of his sala is his responsibility. Fourth, undue delay in transmitting the records is a less serious charge punishable by suspension or a fine, and a judge's utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules erodes public confidence in the courts.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Nicasio Bartolome guilty of undue delay in transmitting the records of a case and imposed on him a fine of twenty thousand pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the ten-day transmittal of the resolution and the entire records, transcripts included, is a ministerial duty, and ignorance of the rules is itself a disciplinable offense. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and remedial law to test a judge's administrative liability for delay in preliminary investigation and the excuse of court personnel's negligence.