Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-94-979)
Facts:
The case involves Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili, the complainant, and Judge Adolfo B. Molina, the respondent. The events leading to this case began with a preliminary investigation conducted by Judge Molina regarding Criminal Case No. 10-435, titled "People of the Philippines v. Rolando Anama," which involved homicide charges. On August 9, 1993, Judge Agcaoili issued an order charging Judge Molina with grave ignorance of the law, asserting that Molina had failed to exercise due diligence in issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused, Rolando Anama. The warrant was based solely on the statements of two witnesses who lacked personal knowledge of the crime, which Judge Agcaoili argued violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. This provision mandates that a judge must personally ascertain probable cause through an examination under oath of the complainant and witnesses. Judge Agcaoili subsequently recalled the warrant and directed the National Bureau of...
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-94-979)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
The case involves a complaint filed by Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili against Judge Adolfo B. Molina for grave ignorance of the law. The complaint arose from Judge Molina's handling of Criminal Case No. 10-435, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rolando Anama," for homicide.Preliminary Investigation and Warrant of Arrest:
Judge Molina conducted a preliminary investigation and issued a warrant of arrest against Rolando Anama based on the affidavits of two witnesses, Mencelacion Padamada and Rosita Castillo. These witnesses had no personal knowledge of the crime but relied on information from Wilma Anama, who allegedly witnessed the killing.Complaint by Judge Agcaoili:
Judge Agcaoili alleged that Judge Molina violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which requires that a judge must personally determine the existence of probable cause based on the examination of the complainant and witnesses under oath. Judge Agcaoili argued that the affidavits relied upon by Judge Molina were hearsay and insufficient to establish probable cause.Recall of the Warrant of Arrest:
Judge Agcaoili recalled the warrant of arrest and ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct a reinvestigation to avoid a miscarriage of justice.Respondent's Defense:
Judge Molina admitted to issuing the warrant of arrest but argued that the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, which has the final say on probable cause for cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, should bear responsibility for any errors. He also contended that the proper remedy for a weak probable cause finding was a reinvestigation.Dismissal of the Criminal Case:
On 17 November 1993, Judge Antonino A. Aquilizan denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and dismissed the criminal case provisionally due to the absence of probable cause.Office of the Court Administrator's Recommendation:
The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Molina be admonished for failing to observe the requirement that the complainant and witnesses must have personal knowledge of the crime. The report emphasized that hearsay evidence cannot justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Issue:
- Whether Judge Molina committed grave ignorance of the law by issuing a warrant of arrest based on hearsay evidence.
- Whether the Provincial Prosecutor's Office should bear responsibility for the erroneous finding of probable cause.
- Whether Judge Molina's actions violated the constitutional requirement for determining probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Molina failed to comply with the constitutional and procedural requirements for issuing a warrant of arrest. The Court found that the affidavits relied upon by Judge Molina were hearsay and lacked personal knowledge of the crime, which is insufficient to establish probable cause. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is a judicial function that cannot be delegated to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office.
Ratio:
Constitutional Requirement for Probable Cause:
Under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, a warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause, which must be determined personally by the judge after examining the complainant and witnesses under oath. Hearsay evidence, which is not based on personal knowledge, cannot be the basis for probable cause.Judicial Responsibility:
The determination of probable cause is a judicial function that must be performed by the judge alone. Judges cannot delegate this responsibility to prosecutors or other officials. Judge Molina's reliance on hearsay evidence and his attempt to shift responsibility to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office were improper.Hearsay Evidence:
The rules of evidence require that a witness can only testify to facts derived from their own perception. Hearsay evidence, such as the statements of Mencelacion Padamada and Rosita Castillo, has no probative value and cannot justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.Remedy for Weak Probable Cause:
The proper remedy for a weak or insufficient finding of probable cause is a reinvestigation, not the issuance of a warrant of arrest based on inadequate evidence.Sanction:
The Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Molina for his failure to comply with the rules on the issuance of a warrant of arrest and warned him that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.