IMELDA S. ENRIQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE OLEGARIO R. SARMIENTO, JR. RESPONDENT.

Enriquez versus Sarmiento

The Case

This is an administrative case for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, and for knowingly rendering an unjust order, filed by Imelda Enriquez, the mother of a murder victim, against Judge Olegario Sarmiento, Jr., the presiding judge of a branch of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The complaint arises from the judge's order releasing a supposed co-accused on bail without first conducting a hearing on the application for bail. The case matters because it fixes the mandatory procedure for bail in capital offenses and clarifies the distinction between a preliminary investigation and an inquest, while reminding every judge that a simple and elementary rule, ignored, is gross ignorance of the law.

Procedural History

Following the killing of Mark James Enriquez in Cebu City, the City Prosecutor filed an information for murder before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, and warrants of arrest were issued against the named accused and several unnamed persons. Anthony John Apura, who went to the police upon invitation, was subjected to an inquest investigation, impleaded as a co-accused, and arrested under a warrant issued by the judge then on duty. Apura challenged the legality of his arrest through a motion to dismiss the information, filed before the branch to which the case was raffled and presided over by the respondent judge. The respondent judge issued an order remanding the case against Apura to the City Prosecutor's Office for preliminary investigation and ordering his release on bail, without a prior hearing. From that order arose the administrative complaint filed by the victim's mother. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and recommended a fine for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court then directed the parties to manifest whether they were submitting the case on the pleadings and records already filed, and both parties answered in the affirmative, so the case was resolved on the papers.

Facts

Mark James Enriquez died in Cebu City on July 21, 2003. Two days later, the City Prosecutor filed an information for murder against Sherwin Que, also known as Bungol, a certain Junjun, and nine unnamed persons, and warrants of arrest were issued against them.

On the invitation of the regional criminal investigation unit, Anthony John Apura, accompanied by his father, went to the police office on August 1, 2003. The next day, a Saturday, an inquest investigation of Apura was conducted by a prosecutor, who recommended that Apura be impleaded as a co-accused. On that same day, the judge then on duty issued a warrant for Apura's arrest, and Apura was immediately arrested and detained.

Apura assailed the legality of his arrest through a motion to dismiss the information. The respondent judge, believing that there was a lack of preliminary investigation, ordered the remand of the case against Apura to the City Prosecutor's Office for preliminary investigation and ordered his release from custody on a bail of 20,000 pesos, citing the rule on arrest without a warrant. The judge did not conduct any hearing on the application for bail. The victim's mother then filed the administrative complaint, and the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine for gross ignorance of the law.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure for ordering the release of the accused on bail without first conducting a hearing on the application for bail.
• Whether or not the absence of a preliminary investigation justified the release of the accused on bail.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

This provision bars bail in capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong, which is precisely why the court must first determine that strength through a hearing.

Section 8 of Rule 114 provides:

Section 8. Burden of proof in bail application. At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is in custody of the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.

This provision makes the hearing mandatory and places the burden on the prosecution, so a release on bail without a hearing disregards the rule.

Section 6 of Rule 112 provides:

Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.

This provision supports the presumption that the judge who issued the warrant against Apura regularly discharged his duty to determine probable cause, so the information and warrant stood despite the defective investigation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law. An application for bail from murder, a capital offense when Apura was indicted, calls for a hearing under Section 8 of Rule 114, in order to determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. The respondent ordered Apura's release on bail without conducting a prior hearing, and the Court held that this disregard of the mandatory procedure betrayed his gross ignorance of the law, since where the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of observance thereof constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the lack of preliminary investigation did not justify the release. The accused was not even arrested without a warrant; he went to the police upon invitation, so he should have been subjected to a preliminary investigation, not a mere inquest. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty and should be held for trial, while an inquest is a summary inquiry to determine whether a warrantless arrest was based on probable cause. Even so, the Court held that the absence of a preliminary investigation did not nullify the information and the warrant of arrest, and therefore did not justify release. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective; but, if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead of dismissing the information, should conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted.

The Court appreciated as mitigating the respondent's issuance of a hold-departure order against the accused, and reduced the recommended fine accordingly.

Doctrine

A person in custody for a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, may be admitted to bail only after a hearing, at which the prosecution bears the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong. The hearing is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

A preliminary investigation is distinct from an inquest. A preliminary investigation determines whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty and should be held for trial, while an inquest is a summary inquiry into whether a warrantless arrest was based on probable cause. An inquest does not substitute for a preliminary investigation except when the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant.

The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction, does not impair the validity of the information, and does not justify the release of the accused. The remedy is to conduct the preliminary investigation or remand the case for that purpose.

Where the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of observance thereof constitutes gross ignorance of the law, punishable by dismissal, suspension, or a fine.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Olegario Sarmiento, Jr. guilty of gross ignorance of the law and fined him 15,000 pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a bail application in a capital offense requires a hearing, and the absence of a preliminary investigation never justifies release because it does not nullify the information or the warrant. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory hearing for bail under Section 8 of Rule 114 and the distinction between a preliminary investigation and an inquest.