MARIANO DEL ROSARIO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE NICASIO BARTOLOME, MTC, STA. MARIA, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

Del Rosario versus Judge Bartolome

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Mariano del Rosario against Judge Nicasio Bartolome of the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, charging the judge with gross ignorance of the law and with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The complainant acted on behalf of his minor daughter, Jennifer, whose complaint for acts of lasciviousness against Roderick Lazaro was dismissed by the respondent judge in an order that also directed the accused's release. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between the preliminary investigation that a Municipal Trial Court judge may not conduct and the preliminary examination that the Rules allow, and because it shows that a prior censure for the same offense does not shield a judge from a heavier penalty.

Procedural History

The complainant first brought his grievance by letter-complaint dated July 26, 1996, addressed to the Supreme Court. The Court required a comment from the respondent judge, which he filed on October 25, 1996. By resolution dated November 18, 1996, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator, through Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, found the respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of 10,000 pesos, noting a previous censure and warning in an earlier administrative matter for the same offense. The case then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court rendered its decision in April 1997.

Facts

On July 1, 1996, Mariano del Rosario filed, on behalf of his minor daughter Jennifer, a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against Roderick Lazaro before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Later that same day, a motion was filed to amend the charge to attempted rape, and after additional statements were taken from the complainants, an amended complaint for attempted rape was filed before the same court.

On July 5, 1996, the respondent judge issued an order finding prima facie evidence only for acts of lasciviousness, declaring that the testimonies could not show even an attempt to lie with the offended party. He treated the amended complaint for attempted rape as an afterthought operating as an abandonment of the previous case, dismissed the case, and referred the matter of the amendment to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal in Malolos, Bulacan. He also ordered the release of the accused upon receipt of the order unless held on some other charge.

The complainant wrote to the Clerk of Court asking that the records be forwarded at once to the Provincial Prosecutor, warning that the release order increased the possibility of flight, and manifesting that the accused should not be released because he was still being held on another charge arising from the amended complaint for attempted rape. After his release, Lazaro could no longer be located, and his whereabouts remained unknown.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for conducting a preliminary investigation of an offense cognizable by his own court, when no preliminary investigation was required.
• Whether or not the respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for referring the amended complaint for attempted rape to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation instead of conducting it himself.
• Whether or not the respondent judge was liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

Applicable Provisions

Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, read with Article 27, fixes the penalty for acts of lasciviousness:

The penalty of prision correccional in its full extent shall be imposed upon any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article.

This matters because prision correccional runs from six months and one day to six years, which places the offense within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 7691, amending Section 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, lodges that jurisdiction:

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years.

This matters because the offense charged belonged to the respondent's own court, so no preliminary investigation was needed.

Section 1 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure limits the requirement:

Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

This matters because the rule confines preliminary investigation to offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.

Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court describes how prosecution is commenced:

The prosecution of an offense falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court is commenced by filing the complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.

This matters because the respondent judge was himself among the appropriate officers enumerated in Section 2 of Rule 112, and should have conducted the investigation of the amended charge himself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent committed patent error in conducting a preliminary investigation after the complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed, since none was required in the first place. Acts of lasciviousness carries prision correccional, and exclusive and original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years belongs to the Municipal Trial Courts. For crimes cognizable by those courts, a preliminary investigation is not required, for it is warranted only for offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent compounded his error by passing to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor the responsibility of conducting the preliminary investigation after the complaint was amended to attempted rape, when he should have done it himself. Being among the appropriate officers under Section 2 of Rule 112, his failure to follow these basic commands of the law and the Rules constituted gross ignorance of the law.

On the third issue, the Court did not sustain the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. It nevertheless rejected the respondent's justification that the release was necessary because of the accused's long detention without a warrant of arrest. The respondent failed to note the motion to reduce bail filed by the accused, which motion may be considered a waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest. That circumstance did not absolve him. The Court agreed with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator but reduced the recommended fine.

Doctrine

A Municipal Trial Court judge has no authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of an offense that falls within his own court's exclusive original jurisdiction. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry into whether a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed, and it is required only for such offenses. For offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, the Municipal Trial Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction, and the filing of the complaint itself commences the case.

When a complaint is amended to charge a graver offense, the judge before whom it is filed, being among the appropriate officers under the Rules, must himself conduct the requisite preliminary investigation if the amended charge falls within the Regional Trial Court's jurisdiction. Passing that duty to the Provincial Prosecutor is gross ignorance of the law.

A judge's invocation of a prolonged detention without a warrant does not excuse an erroneous release order where the accused had filed a motion to reduce bail, which may be treated as a waiver of any irregularity in the arrest.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ordered him to pay a fine of 8,000 pesos within fifteen days from receipt of the resolution, with a stern warning that the same or similar conduct in the future would be dealt with even more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that for crimes cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, a preliminary investigation is not required, for it is warranted only for offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, the scope of Rule 112, and the administrative liability of judges who confuse preliminary examination with preliminary investigation.