ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 3 2005.

AM OCA-IPI No. 05-2273-RTJ ( Imelda C. Fernandez vs. Judge Jose B. Rosales .)

For consideration is the Report dated 1 September 2005 on the administrative matter submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

In an affidavit-complaint dated 2 June 2005 Imelda C. Fernandez charged Judge Jose B. Rosales, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya with "(violation of) the right of the accused not to be imprisoned without due process of law, a clear case of gross ignorance of the law (sic) xxx." The complainant Imelda C. Fernandez is the mother of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 4472-4473 (for violation of Sections 5 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165) filed before RTC, Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya where respondent judge presides.

The complainant alleges that his son Eric Fernandez was acquitted of the crimes charged in the subject cases in a Joint Decision dated 6 January 2005. However, he was not allowed to be released based on a new Information charging him with another crime arising from the same incident allegedly filed by the prosecutor. In an order dated 12 January 2005, respondent judge denied the motion to release the accused and issued a Warrant of Arrest dated 17 January 2005. However, according to the complainant, the new Information, dated 5 January 2005, was filed by the prosecutor only on 29 March 2005. Thus, she emphasizes that despite the said acquittal and the inexistence of the new Information, her son Eric remained in custody of the Provincial Warden from 12 January 2005 to 15 March 2005. Respondent judge issued a release order only on 15 March 2005.

In his comment, respondent judge alleged that the complainant failed to give a detailed account of the facts of the case. He averred that he wrote the Joint Decision of acquittal on 6 January 2005 and scheduled the promulgation of the same on 12 January 2005. On 7 January 2005 and prior to its promulgation, the prosecution filed a motion containing the following allegations:

". . . . The evidence on record would show that the accused should be held liable for violation of section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in addition to the two criminal cases against the accused for Violation of sections 5 and 11, Article II of the same law. To conform to the evidence, an Information against the accused for violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 must be filed in the court. It must be filed in the same court since it involves the same incident which is the subject matter in Criminal Cases Nos. 4472 and 4473.

Accordingly, it is respectfully prayed that the Information against the accused hereto attached and made an integral part hereof for Violation of section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 be admitted and considered."

Attached thereto was the new Information subject of the motion charging the accused with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. However, respondent judge only came to learn of said motion right after the promulgation of the Joint Decision. The motion was not scheduled for hearing as the same did not contain a notice of hearing.

The counsel for the accused manifested that he would file his comment on the motion. However, instead of filing a comment, he filed a motion praying for the release of the accused based on the judgment of acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 4472 and 4473.

Respondent judge further explains that as there was a new criminal information signed by the Investigating Prosecutor and approved by the Provincial Prosecutor, and which the prosecution prayed be made part of the record, and considering that he knew of the existence of probable cause to hold accused Eric liable for the new criminal charge (violation of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165), he denied the motion to release the accused and, thus, issued the corresponding Warrant of Arrest. Respondent judge cited Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which empowered the RTCs to issue an arrest warrant upon the filing of the information subject only to the requirement of the existence of probable cause. He contends that he was certain that a probable cause existed to hold accused Eric liable for violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 as he was the one who received the evidence of the prosecution in Criminal Cases Nos. 4472 and 4473. In fact, the charge of illegal use of prohibited drugs by accused Eric, subject of the new information, was apparent from the result of his drug test which forms part of the prosecution evidence in Criminal Cases Nos. 4472 and 4473. Nevertheless, when he was informed by the Branch Clerk of Court that the new Information had not been filed, he immediately issued the corresponding release order on 15 March 2005.

In its Report dated 1 September 2005, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint. While the judge wrongly acted on the new Information which in actuality had not been filed and which led to the prolonged detention of the accused, the OCA believes that such act is not constitutive of the charge of gross ignorance of the law. The OCA reiterated the rule that a judge may not be held administratively liable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. Only when the error is gross or patent, malicious, deliberate and done in evident bad faith are administrative sanctions called for as an imperative duty of the Court. ¹ In fact, after having been informed that no new Information had been filed, respondent judge rectified his mistake by issuing an order of release proving absence of bad faith.

As the respondent judge acted in good faith and without malice, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint against him.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the same. The administrative complaint of Imelda C. Fernandez against Judge Jose B. Rosales is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The instant administrative matter is CLOSED and TERMINATED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court