*
A.M. No. MTJ061628. June 8, 2007.
P/SUPT. ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, PCI ANTONIO
RICAFORT, SPO4 RICARDO G. ONG, and SPO1
ARNULFO MEDENILLA, complainants, vs. JUDGE
GODOFREDO G. HERNANDEZ, SR., respondent.
Preliminary Investigations; Searches and Seizures; Arrests;
Due Process; Inordinate haste attending the issuance of the
warrants of arrest belies the conduct of preliminary examination
and personal determination of probable cause, in contravention of
the provisions of the Rules of Court, and constituting a denial of
due process.— Indubitably, there was no preliminary
investigation conducted as required by the rules since no
subpoena was issued to herein complainants for them to file
counteraffidavits. Furthermore, the inordinate haste attending
the issuance of the warrants of arrest against complainants,
Ernesto Cruz, and Gus Abelgas belies the conduct of
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
preliminary examination and personal determination of probable
cause, in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of Court,
and constituting a denial of due process.
Same; Same; Same; Conditions for Issuance of Warrant of
Arrest by Municipal Judge during a Preliminary Investigation.—
From the foregoing provision, there are three (3) conditions that
must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the
municipal judge during a preliminary investigation. The
investigating judge must: 1. Have examined in writing and under
oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions
and answers; 2. Be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and 3.
That there is a need to place the respondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—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. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Due Process; 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.
—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. Thus, in the case of Sps. Arcilla
v. Judge Palaypayon and Clerk of Court Bajo, 364 SCRA 464
(2001), the Court held: While respondent judge conducted a
preliminary investigation on the same day the complaint for
estafa was filed, however, he did not notify the accused to give
him an opportunity to submit counteraffidavits and evidence in
his defense. Worst, on the same day, respondent judge issued the
warrant of arrest. Clearly, his actuations
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007 3
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
manifest his ignorance of procedural rules and a reckless
disregard of the accused’s basic right to due process.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A judge, in setting a criminal case
for arraignment and hearing knowing fully well that no
preliminary investigation had been conducted and no information
had yet been filed before his court, clearly violates the right of the
accused to due process, to be informed of the accusation against
him, and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment.—
In a clear display of gross ignorance, 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
clearly violates 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. As record
shows, complainants, as accused in those cases, 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.
Courts; Judges; Gross Ignorance of the Law; Years of service
in the bench simply negate any notion that a judge could be grossly
ignorant of procedural laws.—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.
Newly appointed judges are required to have a working
knowledge of the Rules of Court before they assume their judicial
post. And after years of service in the judiciary, judges are
expected to have become already conversant with the Rules,
which they apply and rely on everyday in court. Years of service
in the bench simply negate any notion that a judge could be
grossly ignorant of procedural laws. It is thus completely
inexcusable for the respondent who had been with the judiciary
for the last twelve (12) years to have acted the way he did in this
case.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. 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 facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
4
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
GARCIA, J.:
This administrative
1
case stems from a joint complaint
affidavit dated April 18, 2005 filed with the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) by complainants P/Supt.
Alejandro Gutierrez, PCI Antonio Ricafort, SPO4 Ricardo
G. Ong, and SPO1 Arnulfo Medenilla, all of the Criminal
Investigation and Detective Division (CIDD) of the
Philippine National Police (PNP), against then (now
retired) Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. of the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro charging the latter with:
1. Gross ignorance of the law;
2. Impropriety;
3. Grave misconduct;
4. Conduct unbecoming of a judge; and
5. Lack of integrity to continue as a member of the
judiciary.
The joint complaintaffidavit alleged that on August 9,
2004, Gus Abelgas of ABSCBN’s “Private Eye” TV program
accompanied one 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 TV crew members who took footage of the operation.
The CIDD team was able to rescue five (5) young girls,
namely, Joahna Cruz (daughter of Ernesto Cruz), Imelda
De Vera, Amylene De Vera, Jackielou Garcia, and Rosalyn
Payawal, from the house of a certain Salvador Napolitano
in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro who claimed that PO2
Jose Ringor, allegedly a member of the Provincial Mobile
Group of the PNP, Oriental Mindoro, brought the women to
him for safekeeping.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 112.
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007 5
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
As a result of the rescue operation, a complaint for
violation of Republic Act (RA) 9208 in relation to RA 7610
was subsequently filed before the City Prosecutor’s Office
of Malabon against PO2 Ringor, his recruiter wife Imelda
and a certain Bebang. Thereafter, the rescued minors were
brought and turned over to the Department of Social
Welfare and Development. Later, the corresponding
Information was filed and warrants of arrest with no bail
recommended were then issued against PO2 Ringor, et al.
Several weeks thereafter, complainants were surprised
to discover 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 the sala of the respondent judge.
Apparently, the rescued girls, except Joahna Cruz, had
retracted their complaint against PO2 Ringor, et al. and
had, instead, filed charges of grave coercion and qualified
trespass to dwelling against the members of the CIDD
rescue team.
It was in connection with said charges, docketed in
respondent judge’s court as Criminal Case Nos. 6149 to
6156, that the instant administrative complaint arose. In
their joint complaintaffidavit, complainants sought to hold
the respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of the law
in—
“1. Issuing warrants of arrest in inordinate haste,
forgoing the mandatory conduct of preliminary
examination and personal determination of
probable cause in contravention of the provisions of
the Rules of Court and in denial of complainants’
constitutional rights to due process; and
2. Setting the said criminal cases for arraignment
without the requisite Informations having yet been
filed in court.”
The same complaintaffidavit also contains factual
allegations which, if true, would constitute impropriety,
grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a member of
the judiciary, to wit:
6
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
“x x x 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 at their respective residences and
brought to Pasig City, and thereafter to La Taberna beach resort
at Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro where they were threatened
and coerced to sign a complaint for grave coercion and qualified
trespass to dwelling against herein complainants including Gus
Abelgas and Ernesto Cruz. They were likewise threatened and
coerced into signing a retraction of their complaint against PO2
Ringor, et al.
[At the said beach resort,] Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez
arrived and conferred with PO2 Ringor, SPO2 Balacana and Atty.
Cabugoy relative to the retraction of the complaint of the minors
against PO2 Ringor, et al. and the filing of the case against herein
[complainants], Ernesto Cruz and Gus Abelgas for qualified
trespass to dwelling and grave coercion. The conference was
allegedly followed by a drinking spree with the group of SPO2
Balacana, PO2 Ringor, Atty. Cabugoy, and Judge Hernandez who
was seen being entertained by two (2) GROs given by SPO2
2
Balacana.” [Words in brackets added]
3
3
In his Comment dated May 31, 2005, the respondent judge
denies the accusations against him and dismisses the same
as pure harassment calculated to cast doubt on his
character and integrity as a retiring judge. He then puts
forth his unblemished record in the government service
since 1956.
To respondent judge, there was nothing anomalous nor
irregular in the procedural steps he undertook relative to
the subject criminal cases. He maintains that his act of
setting said criminal cases for the arraignment of the
complainants, as accused therein, even without any
information having yet been filed, and issuing warrants of
arrest despite the absence of any such information, were all
“pursuant to a valid exercise of his judicial function as the
presiding judge of Pinamalayan.” He asserts that, contrary
to the complainants’ allegation, he conducted a preliminary
investigation and then issued the corresponding warrant of
arrest there being a motion
_______________
2 Joint ComplaintAffidavit; id., at p. 3.
3 Id., at pp. 101111.
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007 7
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
filed by the private offended parties for the early issuance
thereof. He further claims that the determination of
probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of
arrest is his sole prerogative as a judge.
As for the imputation of his having coerced and
manipulated the private offended parties, the respondent
judge counters that there is no showing that he has a
personal interest in those cases. He vehemently denies his
purported participation in a drinking spree while being
entertained by two GROs, stressing that he had never set
foot in La Taverna Beach Resort which has apparently
been nonoperational since 2003 as attested to by the
Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Gloria,
Oriental Mindoro. In any event, respondent points to the
lack of evidence substantiating the alleged entertainment
accorded him.
To bolster his assertion of good moral standing in 4the
community, respondent filed a Supplemental Comment on
June 16, 2005, therein attaching a recent recognition of his
good character, and the various honors and citations
conferred upon him.
In its report of October 19, 2005, the OCA came out with
its findings that the respondent judge was guilty of gross
ignorance of procedural rules. Seeing, however, that this is
the only administrative complaint filed against the
respondent and that he had compulsorily retired last July
15, 2005, the OCA recommended that respondent be merely
fined in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00),
to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
We agree with the OCA’s findings and recommendation.
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court requires
preliminary investigation in cases cognizable by the
municipal trial courts for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day without regard to the fine.
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 199222.
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
Section 3 of Rule 112 explicitly provides for the procedure
to be followed in the conduct of a preliminary investigation,
thus:
“Sec. 3. Procedure.—The preliminary investigation shall be
conducted in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent
and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses, as well as other
supporting documents to establish the probable cause. x x
x
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no
ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a
subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the
complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
x x x x x x x x x
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the
respondent shall submit his counteraffidavit and that of
his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon
for his defense. The counteraffidavits shall be subscribed
and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of
his section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the
complainant. The respondent shall be allowed to file a
motion to dismiss in lieu of a counteraffidavit.
x x x x x x x x x”
It is apparent from the facts on record that the
complainants were never issued any subpoena to accord
them the opportunity to file their counteraffidavits to
adduce evidence controverting those alleged in the criminal
complaints against them before the respondent judge
issued the warrants of arrest. Moreover, the warrants of
arrest were issued without complying with the requisite
conditions therefor.
It was on August 23, 2004 that the complaints for
qualified trespass to dwelling and grave coercion were filed
against “Ernesto Cruz and five (5) John Does” before the
salaof respondent judge. On August 24, 2004, a motion for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Ernesto Cruz
was filed.
9
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007 9
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
Respondent immediately granted said 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 herein
complainants and Gus Abelgas.
Indubitably, there was no preliminary investigation
conducted as required by the rules since no subpoena was
issued to herein complainants for them to file counter
affidavits. Furthermore, the inordinate haste attending the
issuance of the warrants of arrest against complainants,
Ernesto Cruz, and Gus Abelgas belies the conduct of
preliminary examination and personal determination of
probable cause, in contravention of the provisions of the
Rules of Court, and constituting a denial of due process.
Section 6, par. (b) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
provides:
“(b) By the Municipal Trial Court.—When required pursuant to
the second paragraph of Section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary
investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be
conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. x x x When the
investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the
procedure provided in section 3 of this Rule. If his findings and
recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city
prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the
corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant of
arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the
investigation, the judge may 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 a 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.” [Emphasis supplied]
10
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
From the foregoing provision, there are three (3) conditions
that must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest
by the municipal judge during a preliminary investigation.
The investigating judge must:
“1. Have examined in writing and under oath the
complainant and his witnesses by searching
questions and answers;
2. Be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and
3. That there is a need to place the respondent under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the
ends of justice.”
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
5
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
6
custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice. 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 7
custody to prevent
frustration of the ends of justice.
The procedure described in Section 6(b) of Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court is mandatory and failure to 8follow the
same would amount to a denial of due process. Thus, in
the case of
_______________
5 Oktubre v. Judge Velasco, A.M. No. MTJ021444, July 22, 2004, 434
SCRA 636.
6 Bagunas v. Fabillar, A.M. No. MTJ971128, April 22, 1998, 289
SCRA 383.
7 Mantaring v. Roman, A.M. No. RTJ 93064, February 26, 1996, 68
SCRA 670.
8 Cabilao v. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ93818, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA
94.
11
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007 11
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
9
Sps. Arcilla v. Judge Palaypayon and Clerk of Court Bajo,
the Court held:
“While respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation on
the same day the complaint for estafa was filed, however, he did
not notify the accused to give him an opportunity to submit
counteraffidavits and evidence in his defense. Worst, on the same
day, respondent judge issued the warrant of arrest. Clearly, his
actuations manifest his ignorance of procedural rules and a
reckless disregard of the accused’s basic right to due process.”
Worse still, in a clear display of gross ignorance,
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
clearly violates 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. As record shows, complainants, as accused in
those cases, 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
10
would
be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. Newly
appointed judges are required to have a working knowledge
of the Rules of Court before they assume their judicial post.
And after years of service in the judiciary, judges are
expected to have become already conversant with the
Rules, which they apply and rely on everyday in court.
Years of service in the bench simply negate any notion that
a judge could be grossly ignorant of procedural laws. It is
thus completely inexcusable for
_______________
9 A.M. No. MTJ011344, September 5, 2001, 364 SCRA 464.
10 Creer v. Fabillar, A.M. No. MTJ991218, August 14, 2000, 337 SCRA
632.
12
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.
the respondent who had been with the judiciary for the last
twelve (12) years to have acted the way he did in this case.
Be that as it may, compassion works in respondent’s
favor, what with the fact that this is his first
administrative case after more than a decade of judicial
service, let alone the circumstance that he has already
compulsorily retired. OCA’s recommended penalty of FINE
appears in order.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Godofredo G.
Hernandez, Sr. is found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the
Law and Procedure and is ordered to pay a FINE of twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his
retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
SandovalGutierrez (Actg. Chairperson), Corona
and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), On Official Leave.
Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. meted with
P20,000.00 fine for gross ignorance of the law and
procedure.
Notes.—The right to have a preliminary investigation
conducted before being bound over for trial for a criminal
offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some
other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right—it is
a substantive right. (Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals, 281
SCRA 254 [1997])
By so issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge is presumed
to have, before issuing the warrant, previously regularly
discharged his duty to personally determine the the
existence of probable cause against the accused. (Enriquez
vs. Sarmiento, Jr., 498 SCRA 6 [2006])
——o0o——
13
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
