This is an administrative complaint for usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law filed by Lydelle L. Conquilla (complainant) against Judge Lauro G. Bernardo (respondent judge), Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bocaue, Bulacan.The Facts
In a verified complaint dated 30 July 2008, complainant Conquilla charged respondent judge with usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law.
Complainant alleged that on 4 July 2008, a criminal complaint for direct assault was filed against her before the MTC of Bocaue, Bulacan. The complaint was signed by Police Chief Inspector Rizalino Andaya of the Bocaue Police Station.
On 8 July 2008, respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to hold the complainant for trial for the crime of direct assault. Respondent judge then issued a warrant of arrest dated 8 July 2008, with the bail fixed at P12,000.
On 10 July 2008, upon motion of complainant, respondent judge issued an order reducing the bail for complainant's provisional liberty to P6,000. On the same date, complainant posted cash bail of P6,000 for her provisional liberty.
Complainant then filed an administrative complaint, alleging that under A.M. No. 05-08-6-SC, first level court judges no longer have the authority to conduct preliminary investigations. Thus, complainant avers that respondent judge committed an illegal act constituting gross ignorance of the law and procedure when he conducted the preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of arrest. Complainant claims that the hasty issuance of the warrant of arrest was without legal basis and unjustly prejudiced complainant and deprived her of her liberty. Complainant submits that respondent judge usurped the power of the prosecutor, who was not even given the chance to comment on complainant's Motion to Reduce Bail. Furthermore, complainant alleges that when she learned about the warrant of arrest, she called respondent judge's wife, who said "she would help in having the bail reduced to P6,000.00 and would have the case for direct assault against herein complainant dismissed provided herein complainant cancel the wife's debt of P35,000.00 and provided that herein complainant loan the wife an additional amount of P50,000.00."
In his Comment, respondent judge states that he issued the warrant of arrest in good faith because he was convinced that there was probable cause and that it was necessary to place the complainant under immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice. Although respondent judge knew that the Supreme Court already amended Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by removing the conduct of the preliminary investigation from judges of first level courts, he argues that the power to personally determine probable cause in the issuance of a warrant of arrest cannot be revoked. Besides, even if such power to determine probable cause was indeed revoked by the amendment, respondent judge submits that technical rules can be relaxed if their implementation will result in injustice.
Respondent judge further states that he did not usurp the power of the prosecutor when he reduced the bail considering that under Section 20 of Rule 114, the court may increase or decrease the bail upon good cause.
Lastly, respondent judge denies any knowledge of the alleged conversation and transaction between complainant and his wife.The OCA's Report and Recommendation
In its Report dated 12 February 2009, the OCA found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for his patent and unjustified violation of the provisions of the Resolution in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC. The OCA stated that the Resolution in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on 3 October 2005, removed the conduct of investigation from the scope of authority of first level courts judges. Had respondent judge been more prudent in understanding the pertinent provisions of the Resolution in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which are very clear and concise, no administrative complaint would have been filed against him.
The OCA, however, found the charge of usurpation of authority without merit. The OCA agreed with respondent judge that the power to determine the amount of bail is vested in the judge.
The OCA recommended (a) that the administrative complaint against respondent judge be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (b) that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P20,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.The Ruling of the Court
In this case, respondent judge makes it appear that he merely conducted a preliminary examination for the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. However, the records of the case clearly show that respondent judge indeed conducted a preliminary investigation on 8 July 2008. After finding probable cause to hold complainant for trial for the crime of direct assault, respondent judge then issued a warrant for her arrest. That respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and not just a preliminary examination to determine existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is evident in his Order dated 8 July 2008, which reads:
The undersigned, after personal examination of the witnesses in writing and under oath, finds that a probable cause exists and there is sufficient ground to hold the accused LYDELLE L. CONQUILLA for trial for the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT as charged in the complaint. In order not to frustrate the ends of justice, there is a need to place the accused in immediate custody. Let warrant immediately issue for his [sic] arrest hereby fixing bail in the amount of P12,000.00 for his provisional liberty.
Bocaue, Bulacan, July 8, 2008.
HON. LAURO G. BERNARDO
Furthermore, after complainant posted bail on 10 July 2008, respondent judge then issued an Order dated 10 July 2008, ordering the complainant's release and setting the case for her arraignment on 3 September 2008.
The conduct of preliminary investigation by respondent judge was in direct contravention of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on 3 October 2005, amending Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by removing the conduct of preliminary investigation from judges of the first level courts. Thus, under Section 2 of Rule 112, only the following officers are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations: (a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants; (b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and (c) Other officers as may be authorized by law. Furthermore, Section 5 of Rule 112 provides:
SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. â€’
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. â€’ 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 records clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 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.
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. â€’ 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 SHALL be conducted by the prosecutor. The procedure for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section. (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, MTC judges are no longer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation.
In this case, the crime charged against complainant was direct assault against a public school teacher, who is a person in authority under Article 152
of the Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, when the assault is committed against a person in authority while engaged in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion of such performance, the imposable penalty is prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods. The duration of the penalty of prision
i> correccional in its medium and maximum periods is 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years. Thus, the offense charged against complainant requires the conduct of preliminary investigation as provided under Section 1 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SECTION 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. â€’ Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Except as provided in Section 6 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and (1) day without regard to the fine. (Emphasis supplied.)
It was therefore incumbent upon respondent judge to forward the records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, instead of conducting the preliminary investigation himself.
Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Indeed, competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.
Section 3, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
requires judges to maintain and enhance their knowledge and skills to properly perform their judicial functions, thus:
SEC. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.
When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law. Anything less is gross ignorance of the law.
Judges should exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules,
and should be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence.
On the alleged promise of respondent judge's wife that the bail would be reduced provided her P35,000 debt will be cancelled and that complainant grant respondent judge's wife an additional loan, we find that complainant did not substantiate her allegation. Nevertheless, the Court notes that although respondent judge denies knowledge of such transaction between his wife and complainant, respondent judge did not categorically deny his wife's debt to complainant. In his Comment, respondent judge states: "Assuming arguendo
that there really was a loan made by his wife, he did not know of such transaction between his wife and the complainant and given this, he did not allow such transaction to take place."
Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct stresses the importance of propriety and the appearance of propriety to the performance of all the activities of a judge. Respondent judge should bear in mind that judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
Furthermore, judges and members of their families are prohibited from asking for or accepting any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him in connection with the performance of judicial duties.
On respondent judge's issuance of the warrant of arrest and reduction of the amount of bail, we find such acts void for want of jurisdiction. While Rule 114 of the Rules of Court allows a judge to grant bail in bailable offenses and to increase or decrease bail, it assumes that the judge has jurisdiction over the case. In this case, respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation without authority and issued the warrant of arrest. Thus, these acts are void for want of jurisdiction. The reduction of bail is also void because in the first place, respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the case itself.
The Court notes that this is respondent judge's third offense. In 2003, the Court found respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and fined him P19,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
More importantly, in the 2008 case of Santos v. Bernardo
the Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and basic rules of procedure and fined him P20,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
The Court found no merit in respondent judge's supposition that grave coercion is an offense not subject to preliminary investigation. The Court, however, emphasized that when the complaint was filed on 3 January 2006, respondent judge no longer had authority to conduct preliminary investigation by virtue of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC. Thus, the Court held that respondent judge should have referred the complaint to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor instead of issuing the subpoena directing complainants to appear before the Court.
Under Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge, for which the imposable penalty is any of the following:
- Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporation: Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
- Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
- A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
Considering that this is respondent judge's third offense, the second of which was also for gross ignorance of the law, we hold that the penalty of six (6) months suspension from office without salary and other benefits is in order.WHEREFORE
, we find respondent Judge Lauro G. Bernardo GUILTY
of gross ignorance of the law and SUSPEND
him from office for a period of six (6) months without salary and other benefits, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.SO ORDERED
Carpio, (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ.
 Administrative Complaint dated 30 July 2008, p. 3.
 Emphasis supplied.
 Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority â€’ Who shall be deemed as such.â€’ In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. x x x
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. (Emphasis supplied.)
 People v. Renegado, 156 Phil. 260 (1974).
 Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
 The New Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted by the Supreme Court through A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, and which took effect on 1 June 2004.
 Cabico v. Dimaculangan-Querijero, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1735, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 300.
 Savella v. Ines, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1673, 19 April 2007, 521 SCRA 417.
 Amante-Descallar v. Ramas, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2142, 20 March 2009, 582 SCRA 22; Aguilar v. Dalanao, 388 Phil. 717 (2000).
 Respondent judge's Comment, p. 8.
 Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Section 13, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Bulacan, A.M. No. 00-3-50-MTC, 21 July 2003, 407 SCRA 1.
 A.M. No. MTJ-07-1670, 23 July 2008, 559 SCRA 310.
 In Santos, aside from gross ignorance of the law, respondent judge was also charged with impropriety for allowing his girlfriend (who later became his wife) to stay in respondent judge's chamber for long periods of time, in violation of Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to maintain proper decorum. Although the Court likewise found that the complainants therein failed to substantiate any misuse of government funds or facilities, the Court, nevertheless, reminded respondent judge of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
 Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
 In the case of In Re: Mino v. Navarro (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1645, 28 August 2007, 531 SCRA 271), respondent Judge Navarro, who has been previously sanctioned by the Court in two other cases, was meted the penalty of suspension from the service for six (6) months without salary and benefits, for gross ignorance of the law or procedure.