SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1312. February 28, 2001]
GERARDO UBANDO-PARAS, Chief of Police-Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija, complainant, vs. JUDGE OCTAVIO A. FERNANDEZ, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
On June 5, 1997,
complainant Gerardo Ubando-Paras, the Chief of Police of General M. Natividad, Nueva
Ecija, charged Judge Octavio A. Fernandez, of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
in Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija, for Irregularity in the Performance of
Official Duty in connection with Criminal Case No. 2477-N, entitled “People
of the Philippines vs. Vicente Joaquin” for Violation of P.D. No. 1866
(Illegal Possession of Firearms).
In his letter-complaint,
addressed to the Executive Judge, RTC of Cabanatuan City, Chief Ubando-Paras
alleged that on February 26, 1997, complainant, with two (2) policemen, armed
with a search warrant issued by respondent, conducted a search at the residence
of Domingo Joaquin and Vicente Joaquin.
They confiscated a .22 caliber Arminus revolver with serial number 90976
and eight (8) pieces of .22 caliber bullets from Vicente Joaquin. A complaint was filed and Vicente Joaquin
was arrested and accused. On March 3,
1997, respondent ordered the release of the accused upon a cash bond allegedly
of P60,000.00.
The preliminary
investigation of Joaquin’s case was first set on March 7, 1997 but was re-set
to March 10, 1997. Since then no action had been taken despite several
follow-ups by complainant. He filed a motion dated March 17, 1997, asking that
the criminal complaint be remanded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, to
no avail. According to Chief
Ubando-Paras, respondent should be administratively disciplined also for
erroneously ordering the release of the accused Vicente Joaquin. Certifications
by Teresita S. Esteban, Clerk of Court, dated April 18, 1997 attest that the
accused did not file the aforecited cash bond, and that she did not have the
case expediente, the Chief said. He also presented a letter dated April
15, 1997 from a certain Jose Natividad stating that the record of the case for
illegal possession of firearms was with respondent.
In his Comment dated
November 10, 1997, respondent pointed out that the said criminal case against
Joaquin was filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court and endorsed to him for
preliminary investigation. Pursuant to the rules on preliminary investigation,
he said he summoned both parties. Joaquin’s wife, Remalyn, complained of the
illegality of the arrest and detention in the municipal jail of her husband and
that the arresting officers demanded money for the dropping of the charges and
the release of her husband, according to respondent. She pleaded that they be allowed to post bail in the amount they
could afford. After informing the public prosecutor of the motion for bail and
finding no objection, respondent set bail at P60,000.00. Joaquin and a personal guarantor issued and
deposited in Court PNB Check No. 381572, dated 3 March 1997. Respondent then
issued an Order of Release stating therein the deposit of the check for the
release of the accused, without prejudice to the outcome of the preliminary
investigation.
Respondent explained he
did not remand the complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor Office because, under
the rules, he had to first investigate the case, determine if there was
probable cause, and file or dismiss it.
Thence, the resolution/order would be forwarded to the Provincial
Prosecutor’s Office for review. He added that to remand the case without first
these determinations would invite charges against him for being either ignorant
of procedural laws and rules, or for being remiss in his duty. Respondent added that after careful scrutiny
of the evidence and finding no probable cause, he dismissed the complaint and
forwarded the resolution of dismissal to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office for
review. Respondent judge avers that since the resolution dismissing the charge
was already forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor as well as the
expediente of the case, for approval or disapproval, there appears no
further cause for the instant complaint.
In a letter dated
September 23, 1998 addressed to the Court Administrator, respondent sent a copy
of a resolution dated December 12, 1997 issued by the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, denying the motion for reconsideration of the
Office of the Prosecutor’s approval of the dismissal of the criminal complaint.
According to respondent, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor had earlier
affirmed and concurred with the dismissal of the criminal complaint.
In its report and
evaluation of the complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator found that
respondent, Judge Octavio A. Fernandez, manifested ignorance of the law when he
erroneously applied P.D. 911 and the Judiciary Reorganization Act instead of
Sec. 3 (b), (f), Sec. 4, and Sec. 5 of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure.[1] Likewise, respondent exhibited gross
ignorance of the law, according to the OCA, when he ordered the release of
Joaquin, upon the latter’s payment of a check for P60,000.00
to the court, contrary to Section 14 of Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure[2] which requires payment of a cash bond with
the nearest collector of internal revenue, or provincial, city or municipal
treasurer, and upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written
undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of the said rule.
Further, according to the
OCA, respondent did not promptly transmit the records of the case as required
by Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 4 of Rule 112.[3] The OCA also observed that there was no
record when respondent judge submitted the resolution and expediente to
the prosecutor’s office and there was no copy of the supposed resolution. In
fact, the Clerk of Court, Teresita S. Esteban, in a letter dated April 18,
1997, stated that she was not aware of any “resolution” in connection with
Criminal Case No. 24771-N and that said records were kept on file at Llanera,
Nueva Ecija. We note, however, that there appears on record a Resolution dated
December 12, 1997, issued by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cabanatuan City, which denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
complainant.
The report also mentioned
that respondent had two (2) other administrative cases, one for Negligence and
Gross Inefficiency, and another for Dishonesty and Violation of RA 3019.
The OCA recommends that a
fine of P5,000.00 be imposed on Judge Fernandez with a warning that the
commission of a similar act would be dealt with more severely.
In Tabao vs. Espina,[4] we stated that while we do not expect judges
to have an encyclopedic recollection of applicable laws and jurisprudence in
the discharge of their responsibilities, they nevertheless have the bounden
duty to keep abreast with law and the changes therein as well as the latest
decisions of the Supreme Court. In Carpio
vs. De Guzman,[5] we imposed a fine of P7,500.00
on the judge for gross ignorance, although without any malice or corrupt
motive. In Villaluz vs. Mijares,[6] the judge was fined P20,000.00
for allowing her Branch Clerk of Court OIC to collect and receive rental
deposits. Likewise, in the case of Bantuas
vs. Pangadapun,[7] the Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00
for ignorance of law for the judge’s failure to conduct the hearing required
prior to the grant of bail in capital offenses.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Octavio A. Fernandez is
found liable for said irregularity in the performance of official duty with
manifest ignorance of the law. As
recommended, he is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). He is WARNED that a repetition of the same
or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Mendoza, Buena, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] RULE
112.
x x x
SEC. 3. Procedure.—Except as provided for in
Section 7 hereof, no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having
been first conducted in the following manner:
x x x
(b) Within ten
(10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer
shall either dismiss the same if he finds no ground to continue with the
inquiry, or issue a subpoena to the respondent, attaching thereto a copy of the
complaint, affidavits and other supporting documents. Within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, the respondent shall
submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents. He shall have the right to examine all other
evidence submitted by the complainant.
x x x
(f) Thereafter, the
investigation shall be deemed concluded, and the investigating officer shall
resolve the case within ten (10) days therefrom. Upon the evidence thus adduced, the
investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground
to hold the respondent for trial.
SEC. 4. Duty of investigating fiscal.—If the
investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall
prepare the resolution and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record,
an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was
informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he
was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of
the complaint.
In either case, he
shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief
state prosecutor within five (5) days from his resolution. The latter shall take appropriate action
thereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, immediately informing the
parties of said action.
No complaint or
information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the
prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief
state prosecutor.
x x x
SEC. 5. Duty of
investigating judge.—Within ten (10) days after the conclusion of
the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit to the
provincial or city fiscal, for appropriate action, the resolution of the case,
stating briefly the findings of facts and the law supporting his action,
together with the entire records of the case, which shall include: (a) the
warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits and other
supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused;
(d) the order of release of the accused and cancellation of his bail bond, if
the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.
Should the provincial
or city fiscal disagree with the findings of the investigating judge on the
existence of probable cause, the fiscal’s ruling shall prevail, but he must
explain his action in writing furnishing the parties with copies of his
resolution, not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the records from
the judge. If the accused is detained, the fiscal shall order his
release.
[2] SEC.
14. Deposit of cash as bail.—The accused or any person acting in his
behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue, or
provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court
or recommended by the fiscal who investigated or filed the case, and upon
submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a written undertaking
showing compliance with the requirements of Section 2 hereof, the accused shall
be discharged from custody. Money thus
deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of any fine
and costs and the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to
whoever made the deposit.
[3] Supra,
note 1.
[4] 309
SCRA 273, 290 (1999).
[5] 262
SCRA 615, 622 (1996).
[6] 288
SCRA 594, 616 (1998).
[7] 292
SCRA 622, 630 (1998).