Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.

A municipal judge commits gross ignorance of the law and procedure when he issues warrants of arrest without conducting the preliminary investigation required by Rule 112, without the concurrence of the three conditions for issuance during preliminary investigation, and when he sets criminal cases for arraignment without Informations having been filed.

Complainants were officers of the Criminal Investigation and Detective Division of the Philippine National Police, and respondent Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. was the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The administrative matter was docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628 and was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator. The governing backdrop is Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes preliminary investigation and the conditions for issuance of warrants of arrest by municipal judges.

Complainants P/Supt. Alejandro Gutierrez, PCI Antonio Ricafort, SPO4 Ricardo G. Ong, and SPO1 Arnulfo Medenilla were officers of the Criminal Investigation and Detective Division of the Philippine National Police. Respondent Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. was then the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. On April 18, 2005, complainants filed a joint complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator charging respondent 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 administrative complaint arose from respondent's handling of criminal cases for grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling filed against complainants and others in his sala, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 6149 to 6156.

On August 9, 2004, Gus Abelgas of ABS-CBN's "Private Eye" television program accompanied Ernesto Cruz to Camp Crame, Quezon City, to file a complaint involving Cruz's minor daughter, who was allegedly recruited in Malabon, Metro Manila, to work in a KTV bar in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The next day, August 10, 2004, complainants, as CIDD officers and agents, conducted a rescue operation accompanied by Ernesto Cruz, Gus Abelgas, and other ABS-CBN crew members who took footage of the operation. The CIDD team rescued five young girls—Joahna Cruz, Imelda De Vera, Amylene De Vera, Jackielou Garcia, and Rosalyn Payawal—from the house of Salvador Napolitano in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. Napolitano claimed that PO2 Jose Ringor, allegedly a member of the Provincial Mobile Group of the PNP, Oriental Mindoro, had brought the women to him for safekeeping. A complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9208 in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 was subsequently filed before the City Prosecutor's Office of Malabon against PO2 Ringor, his recruiter wife Imelda, and a certain Bebang. The rescued minors were turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the corresponding Information was later filed, with warrants of arrest and no bail recommended issued against PO2 Ringor and others.

Several weeks later, complainants discovered that cases for grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling had been filed against them, Gus Abelgas, and Ernesto Cruz in the MTC of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, before respondent's sala. Apparently, the rescued girls, except Joahna Cruz, had retracted their complaint against PO2 Ringor and others and had instead filed charges against the members of the CIDD rescue team. The charges were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 6149 to 6156. The record shows that on August 23, 2004, complaints for qualified trespass to dwelling and grave coercion were filed against "Ernesto Cruz and five (5) John Does" before respondent's sala. On August 24, 2004, a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Ernesto Cruz was filed, and respondent immediately granted the motion and issued a warrant for his arrest that same day. On September 8, 2004, a Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint was filed by Amylene, Imelda, and Jackielou identifying the names of the members of the CIDD rescue team, including Gus Abelgas; again, on the very same day, warrants of arrest were hastily issued against complainants and Gus Abelgas. Complainants, as accused in those cases, later received subpoenas dated February 11, 2005, commanding them to appear before the court on March 4, 2005 for arraignment without the corresponding Informations having yet been filed.

Complainants alleged that on August 17, 2004, Rosalyn Payawal, Amylyn de Vera, Imelda dela Rosa, and Jackielou, four of the rescued girls, were taken by SPO2 Arnulfo Balacana, PO2 Jose Ringor, and a certain Atty. Cabugoy, with two others, from their respective residences and brought to Pasig City, and thereafter to La Taberna beach resort in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, where they were threatened and coerced to sign a complaint for grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling against complainants, including Gus Abelgas and Ernesto Cruz. They were likewise threatened and coerced into signing a retraction of their complaint against PO2 Ringor and others. At the beach resort, Judge Hernandez allegedly arrived and conferred with PO2 Ringor, SPO2 Balacana, and Atty. Cabugoy relative to the retraction and the filing of the case against complainants, Ernesto Cruz, and Gus Abelgas. The conference was allegedly followed by a drinking spree with the group of SPO2 Balacana, PO2 Ringor, and Atty. Cabugoy, during which Judge Hernandez was seen being entertained by two GROs given by SPO2 Balacana.

In his Comment dated May 31, 2005, respondent denied the accusations and dismissed them as pure harassment calculated to cast doubt on his character and integrity as a retiring judge, and he put forth his unblemished record in government service since 1956. He maintained that there was nothing anomalous or irregular in the procedural steps he undertook relative to the subject criminal cases. He asserted that setting the criminal cases for arraignment even without any Information having been filed, and issuing warrants of arrest despite the absence of any such Information, were pursuant to a valid exercise of his judicial function as presiding judge of Pinamalayan. He claimed that, contrary to the complainants' allegation, he conducted a preliminary investigation and then issued the corresponding warrant of arrest because a motion had been filed by the private offended parties for its early issuance, and that the determination of probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest was his sole prerogative as a judge. As for the imputation of coercion and manipulation, he countered that there was no showing of personal interest in those cases, and he vehemently denied participation in a drinking spree while being entertained by two GROs, stressing that he had never set foot in La Taverna Beach Resort, which had apparently been non-operational since 2003 as attested by a Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Gloria, Oriental Mindoro; in any event, he pointed to the lack of evidence substantiating the alleged entertainment. He later filed a Supplemental Comment on June 16, 2005, attaching a recent recognition of his good character and various honors and citations.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law — Warrants of Arrest: Complainants alleged that respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing warrants of arrest in inordinate haste, forgoing the mandatory conduct of preliminary examination and personal determination of probable cause, in contravention of the Rules of Court and in denial of their constitutional right to due process.
• Gross Ignorance of the Law — Arraignment Without Information: Complainants alleged that respondent set the criminal cases for arraignment without the requisite Informations having yet been filed in court.
• Impropriety, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Unbecoming: Complainants alleged that respondent arrived at La Taberna beach resort and conferred with PO2 Ringor, SPO2 Balacana, and Atty. Cabugoy regarding the retraction of the minors' complaint and the filing of cases against complainants, and that the conference was followed by a drinking spree during which respondent was entertained by two GROs given by SPO2 Balacana.

• Procedural Regularity: Respondent denied the accusations as pure harassment and maintained that there was nothing anomalous or irregular in the procedural steps he undertook; setting the cases for arraignment and issuing warrants despite the absence of Informations were pursuant to a valid exercise of his judicial function.
• Preliminary Investigation and Probable Cause: Respondent asserted that he conducted a preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of arrest because the private offended parties filed a motion for its early issuance; the determination of probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest was his sole prerogative as a judge.
• No Personal Interest / Denial of Misconduct: Respondent countered that there was no showing of personal interest in the cases, denied participation in a drinking spree or being entertained by GROs, stated he never set foot in La Taverna Beach Resort, which had been non-operational since 2003 per a certification from the Municipal Treasurer of Gloria, Oriental Mindoro, and noted the lack of evidence substantiating the alleged entertainment.
• Good Record: Respondent put forth his unblemished record in government service since 1956 and attached a recognition of his good character and various honors and citations.

• Preliminary Investigation and Warrant of Arrest: Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure for issuing warrants of arrest without conducting the mandatory preliminary investigation and without complying with the conditions for issuance of a warrant during preliminary investigation under Rule 112.
• Arraignment Without Information: Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure for setting Criminal Case Nos. 6149 to 6156 for arraignment without the corresponding Informations having been filed.
• Penalty: Whether the recommended penalty of fine, deductible from retirement benefits, is proper given respondent's first administrative offense and compulsory retirement.

• Preliminary Investigation and Warrant of Arrest: Yes. Respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure; Rule 112 requires preliminary investigation and, for warrant issuance, the concurrence of three conditions, none of which was satisfied.
• Arraignment Without Information: Yes. Setting cases for arraignment without Informations violates due process and the accused's right to be informed of the accusation and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment.
• Penalty: Yes. A fine of P20,000.00, deductible from retirement benefits, is proper; the OCA recommended it, and compassion applies because this was respondent's first administrative case after more than a decade of judicial service and he had already compulsorily retired.

• Preliminary Investigation and Warrant of Arrest: Section 1, Rule 112 requires preliminary investigation in cases cognizable by the MTC for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months, and one day without regard to the fine. Section 3, Rule 112 prescribes the procedure: the complaint must be accompanied by affidavits and supporting documents; within ten days, the investigating officer must either dismiss or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching the complaint and supporting affidavits; the respondent then has ten days from receipt of the subpoena to submit counter-affidavit and evidence. The complainants were never issued any subpoena to accord them the opportunity to file counter-affidavits before respondent issued the warrants of arrest. The warrants were also issued without complying with the requisite conditions. On August 23, 2004, complaints for qualified trespass to dwelling and grave coercion were filed 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 respondent immediately granted it and issued the warrant that same day. On September 8, 2004, a motion to amend the criminal complaint identifying the CIDD rescue team members, including Gus Abelgas, was filed, and again on the same day warrants of arrest were hastily issued against complainants and Gus Abelgas. There was thus no preliminary investigation conducted as required by the rules. The inordinate haste attending the issuance of the warrants belied the conduct of preliminary examination and personal determination of probable cause, contravened the Rules of Court, and constituted a denial of due process. Section 6(b), Rule 112 allows a municipal judge, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, to 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 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. Three conditions must concur: (1) the investigating judge must have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; (2) he must be satisfied that probable cause exists; and (3) 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 was clearly irregular because, not only did it lack a preliminary investigation, but the order granting issuance did not show any finding of a need to place complainants under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 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. The Court cited Sps. Arcilla vs. Judge Palaypayan and Clerk of Court Bajo, where a judge conducted a preliminary investigation on the same day the complaint was filed but did not notify the accused to submit counter-affidavits and issued the warrant of arrest on the same day, which manifested ignorance of procedural rules and reckless disregard of the accused's basic right to due process. Respondent's twelve years in the judiciary negated any notion that he could be grossly ignorant of procedural laws.
• Arraignment Without Information: Respondent set Criminal Case Nos. 6149 to 6156 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 violated complainants' right, as accused in those cases, to due process, to be informed of the accusation against them, and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment. The record showed that complainants, as accused, had already received subpoenas way back on February 11, 2005, commanding them to appear before the court on March 4, 2005 for arraignment without the corresponding Informations having as yet been filed. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it; 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, and after years of service, judges are expected to be conversant with the Rules they apply and rely on every day in court.
• Penalty: Compassion worked in respondent's favor because this was his first administrative case after more than a decade of judicial service and he had already compulsorily retired. The OCA's recommended penalty of a fine appeared in order. The Supreme Court thus found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and ordered him to pay a fine of P20,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure — A judge commits gross ignorance of the law and procedure when he fails to apply basic, elementary procedural rules that he is expected to know and apply. In this case, the respondent's failure to conduct preliminary investigation, issuance of warrants without the required finding of necessity for immediate custody, and setting of arraignment without Informations constituted gross ignorance. The Court emphasized that years of judicial service negate any claim of ignorance of procedural laws.
• Preliminary Investigation Under Rule 112 — In cases cognizable by the MTC where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months, and one day without regard to the fine, preliminary investigation is required. The procedure under Section 3, Rule 112 includes the filing of the complaint with affidavits and supporting documents, the issuance of a subpoena to the respondent with copies of the complaint and supporting affidavits, and the respondent's submission of counter-affidavit and evidence within ten days from receipt. Failure to issue the subpoena and receive counter-affidavits means no preliminary investigation was conducted.
• Requisites for Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest by a Municipal Judge During Preliminary Investigation — Under Section 6(b), Rule 112, a municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest without waiting for the conclusion of the preliminary investigation only if three conditions concur: (1) the judge has examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; (2) the judge is satisfied that probable cause exists; and (3) there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Even if probable cause exists, issuance is not mandatory unless the necessity of immediate custody is shown. The procedure is mandatory; failure to comply amounts to denial of due process.
• Arraignment Without Information — Setting a criminal case for arraignment without the corresponding Information having been filed violates the accused's right to due process, the right to be informed of the accusation, and the right to have a copy of the Information before arraignment. Such conduct constitutes gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
• Penalty for Gross Ignorance by a Retired Judge — A fine may be imposed instead of dismissal where the respondent has already compulsorily retired, this is his first administrative case after more than a decade of judicial service, and the OCA recommended a fine. In this case, the fine was P20,000.00, deductible from retirement benefits.

• "The issuance of the warrants of arrest in this case was clearly irregular since, not only did it lack a preliminary investigation, but the order granting such issuance did not show any finding of a need to place complainants under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice." — This passage states the core ratio for the finding of gross ignorance: the warrants were invalid not only for lack of preliminary investigation but also for absence of the required finding on immediate custody.
• "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 in order not to frustrate the ends of justice." — This clarifies that probable cause alone does not justify issuance; the third condition under Section 6(b), Rule 112 must also be satisfied.
• "The procedure described in Section 6(b) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and failure to follow the same would amount to a denial of due process." — This is the controlling statement on the mandatory character of the procedure and the due process consequence of non-compliance.
• "When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it. Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law." — This defines the standard for gross ignorance of the law applied to respondent's failure to observe basic procedural rules.

• Sps. Arcilla vs. Judge Palaypayan and Clerk of Court Bajo, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1344, September 5, 2001, 364 SCRA 464 — Cited as controlling/illustrative precedent; the Court quoted it to show that a judge who conducted a preliminary investigation but did not notify the accused to submit counter-affidavits and issued a warrant of arrest on the same day manifested ignorance of procedural rules and reckless disregard of the accused's right to due process.
• Oktubre vs. Judge Velasco, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1444, July 22, 2004, 434 SCRA 636 — Cited in support of the ruling that the order granting issuance of the warrant must show a finding of the need to place the respondent under immediate custody to prevent frustration of the ends of justice.
• Bagunas vs. Fabillar, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1128, April 22, 1998, 289 SCRA 383 — Cited for the rule that even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory to issue a warrant of arrest; he must further determine the necessity of immediate custody.
• Mantaring vs. Roman, A.M. No. RTJ 93-064, February 26, 1996, 68 SCRA 670 — Cited for the rule that it is improper for a municipal judge to issue a warrant of arrest without any finding that it was necessary to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent frustration of the ends of justice.
• Cabilao vs. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-93-818, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 94 — Cited for the rule that the procedure in Section 6(b), Rule 112 is mandatory and failure to follow it amounts to denial of due process.
• Creer vs. Fabillar, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1218, August 14, 2000, 337 SCRA 632 — Cited for the rule that when the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and apply it, and anything less constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

• Section 1, Rule 112, Rules of Court — Requires preliminary investigation in cases cognizable by the MTC for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months, and one day without regard to the fine. Applied because the criminal cases against complainants fell within this requirement.
• Section 3, Rule 112, Rules of Court — Prescribes the procedure for preliminary investigation: the complaint must state the address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits and supporting documents; the investigating officer must issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching the complaint and supporting affidavits; the respondent must submit counter-affidavit and evidence within ten days from receipt. Applied because no subpoena was issued to complainants, so no preliminary investigation was conducted.
• Section 6(b), Rule 112, Rules of Court — Governs preliminary investigation by the MTC. When the judge conducts the investigation, he must follow Section 3; if his findings are affirmed and the Information is filed, he shall issue a warrant. Without waiting for the conclusion, he may issue a warrant if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers that probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody to prevent frustration of the ends of justice. Applied because the three conditions did not concur.
• Constitutional Due Process and Rights of the Accused (as referenced in the decision) — The decision states that failure to follow the mandatory procedure amounts to denial of due process, and that arraignment without Informations violates the right to due process, to be informed of the accusation, and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment. Applied to respondent's issuance of warrants and setting of arraignment.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Acting Chairperson; Corona; Azcuna, JJ., concur. Puno, C.J., Chairperson, was on leave.