Republic
of the
PhilippinesSUPREME
COURTBaguioTHIRD
DIVISION
MARIANO
DEL ROSARIO, JR.,
Petitioner,
A. M. No. MTJ-97-1114
April 4, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
NICASIO BARTOLOME,
MTC, Sta. Maria, Bulacan,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
MELO, J.:
Municipal Trial
Court [Sta. Maria, Bulacan] Judge
Nicasio Bartolome is once again named respondent in the instant
administrative
case for gross ignorance of the law and for knowingly rendering an
unjust
judgment.
It appears that
on July 1, 1996, complainant Mariano
del Rosario filed on behalf of his minor daughter Jennifer, a complaint
for acts of lasciviousness against Roderick Lazaro, which was
thereafter
docketed as Criminal Case No. 10273 of the Municipal Trial Court of
Sta.
Maria, Bulacan. Later that same day, a motion was filed to amend the
charge
to attempted rape. After additional statements were taken from
complainants,
an amended complaint for attempted rape was filed before the same court
[p. 1, Office of the Court Administrator Report].cralaw:red
On July 5, 1996,
respondent judge issued the following
Order, from which the charges against him stemmed:
Upon conclusion of the preliminary
examination
by conducting searching questions and answers of the witnesses for the
prosecution Rosalia del Rosario, mother and the daughter Jennifer del
Rosario
respectively, this Court finds prima facie evidence to admit
the
complaint as charged that is, Acts of Lasciviousness, as there was no
evidence
found to support a case of Attempted Rape as the testimonies could not
show that there was even an attempt on the part of the accused to lie
with
the offended party or to have sexual intercourse it being the second
occasion
already according to the. testimony of the mother. Thereafter, the
complainant
thru counsel filed a motion to amend complaint to attempted rape and
supporting
the amended complaint with additional statement. On the other hand,
there
is a motion on the part of the accused to reduce bail previously fixed
for Acts of Lasciviousness. Thereafter, thought of the complainant for
Attempted Rape operates as an abandonment of the previous case and,
therefore,
appears to have lost interest to further prosecute the some.
WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed
and
the matter of having the same amended is referred to the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal, Malolos, Bulacan for further action.
The Station Commander or any of his
authorized
representative is hereby ordered to release the living person of the
accused
upon receipt of this Order unless held on some other charges.
SO ORDERED [p. 11, Rollo].
In a letter to
the Clerk of Court of the Municipal
Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, complainant requested that the
records
of the case be forwarded immediately to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor
since the release order increased the possibility of Lazaro fleeing.
Complainant
also manifested his opinion that Lazaro should not be ordered released
because he is still being held on another charge by reason of the
amended
complaint for attempted rape [p. 12, Ibid.].
True enough,
after his release, Lazaro could no
longer be located, his whereabouts unknown [p. 1, Office of the Court
Administrator
Report]. Thereafter, complainant Mariano del Rosario filed the
instant
letter-complaint dated July 26, 1996 [pp. 1-2, Rollo].cralaw:red
In the comment
dated October 25, 1996 required
of him, respondent explained that his acts were all done according to
procedure.
His theory is that the filing of the amended complaint for attempted
rape
constitutes an abandonment of the complaint for acts of lasciviousness.
Furthermore, as accused Lazaro was being held in detention without a
warrant
of arrest even before the filing of the complaint for acts of
lasciviousness,
he had to be released pending the preparation of the proper charge [pp.
14-15, Ibid.].cralaw:red
The case was
ordered referred to the Office of
the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation in
this
Court's Resolution dated November 18, 1996 [p. 16, Ibid.].
Perplexed
as to why respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation of an
offense cognizable by his court. when it was not necessary, and
thereafter,
referring the amended complaint for attempted rape to the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation when he could have
conducted it himself, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L.
Suarez
submits that respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, Noting
that he was previously censured and warned by the Court in Adm. Matter
No. MTJ-95-1068 for gross ignorance of the law on account of granting a
motion for extension of time to file answer, a prohibited pleading, in
an action subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, a fine of
P10,000.00
is recommended as the proper sanction, with a stern warning that the
same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely [pp. 4-5, Office of
the
Court Administrator Report].cralaw:red
The Court agrees
with the findings of the Office
of the Court Administrator, although we deem it fit to reduce the fine.cralaw:red
The Revised Penal
Code imposes the penalty of
prision correccional for acts of lasciviousness, which penalty has a
duration
of six months and one day to six years [Articles 27 & 336].
Exclusive
and original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not
exceeding six years is lodged with the Municipal Trial Courts [Section
2, R. A. 7691, amending Section 32(2), B. P. 129]. For crimes
cognizable
by Municipal Trial Courts, a preliminary investigation is not required
for such is only warranted for offenses cognizable by the Regional
Trial
Court [Section 1, Rule 112, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure]. Thus,
it was patent error for respondent judge to conduct a preliminary
investigation
after the complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed for none was
required
in the first place. To compound such error, he passed the
responsibility
of conducting the preliminary investigation after the complaint was
amended
to attempted rape to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor when he
should
have done it himself. Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules states that 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."
Being among the appropriate officers enumerated in Section 2 of Rule
112,
respondent judge's failure to follow these basic commands of the law
and
the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law.cralaw:red
Respondent
justifies hit assailed order by saying
that the release of accused Lazaro was necessary in view of his already
long detention without any warrant of arrest, although he failed to
note
the motion to reduce bail filed by the accused, which motion may be
considered
as a waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest. This, however
does
not absolve respondent.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE,
respondent Judge Nicasio Bartolome
is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of Eight Thousand [P8,000.00] pesos to
be paid within fifteen [15] days from receipt of this Resolution, and
is
sternly WARNED that the same or similar conduct in the future will be
dealt
with even more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Francisco and
Panganiban, JJ., concur |