ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 97-273-MTJ. February 17, 1999]

MARY JANE B. FRANCO vs. JUDGE ORLANDO C. PAGUIO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 17, 1999.

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 97-273-MTJ (Mary Jane B. Franco vs. Judge Orlando C. Paguio.)

This Administrative complaint stemmed from an Information for Estafa files with the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, Branch 1, and the subsequent issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the complainant Mary Jane Franco.

Complainant, Mary Jane B. Franco is the accused in the Criminal Case No. 97-21551 filed before the Municipal Trial Court, presided over by Judge Orlando C. Paguio. She alleges that respondent judge ordered her arrest after an ex-parte Preliminary Investigation conducted on February 13, 1997.

On February 7, 1997, Equitable Manpower Association Inc. sued complainant for Estafa in the amount of P75,000.00. The respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation, but failed to give notice to complainant Mary Jane Franco.

In the ex-parte preliminary investigation, Judge Paguio, after questioning the complainant, Clarita Castillo and another witness, Erlinda Bilon, as to the veracity of their affidavit/complaint, issued a warrant for the arrest of complainant. Judge Paguio, likewise ordered the record of the case to be forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor for further action, without giving accused Franco an opportunity to present her evidence.

Hence, this complaint.

Mary Jane Franco accused Judge Paguio of grave abuse of Judicial authority, and gross ignorance of the law, which denied her the right to due process of law. The order by respondent judge, for the filing of a case for Estafa, without any preliminary investigation violates her right to due process.

Indeed, it would appear that Judge Paguio was hasty in his actions. The right to a preliminary investigation although statutory in character, can not be denied to an accused unless it is waived. A denial thereof is a denial of due process.1 U.S. vs. Banzuela, 31 Phil 564.1

In the case at bar, it is clearly demonstrated that the complainant, Mary Jane Franco, was not given notice of the preliminary investigation. Further, the records will reveal that respondent judge simply asked the witnesses to affirm the contents of their respective affidavits and did not probe into the issue of whether probable cause really exist for the filing of the case.

We are however, not inclined to agree with the allegation of the complainant that the bail set was excessive. The bail is just in keeping with Department of Justice Circular No. 4 and thus, is neither excessive nor oppressive.

In view of the foregoing, we find respondent Judge Orlando C. Paguio, to be remiss in his duty as an officer of the court. Such omission on his part caused the denial of the right of the complainant to present evidence in her behalf and is tantamount to denial of due process.

We hereby admonish respondent Judge, to be more careful in his orders and issuances with a warning that a similar infraction in the future will be dealt with severely.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE