Facts:
On June 27, 2005, the Court resolved an administrative case filed directly with it by
Thelma Almonte against
Judge Fred A. Bien, then Acting Presiding Judge of the
8th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San Jacinto-Monreal, 5th Judicial Region, San Jacinto, Masbate. The complaint arose from respondent judge’s conduct of what was alleged to be a
preliminary investigation in
Criminal Case No. 4598 for
robbery filed by
Isauro Lique against complainant Almonte and her husband
Jaime Almonte. Complainant alleged that after respondent judge conducted an ex parte inquiry on Lique, he issued an order dated April 24, 2002 directing the arrest of complainant and her husband and setting their bail at
P40,000 each, but allegedly disregarded the required procedure under
Section 3(b) and (c), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Court by failing to provide copies of the robbery complaint to the accused and failing to summon them to appear and submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. Complainant claimed that she and her husband were thus deprived of
due process. Through counsel, complainant then filed on May 20, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 4598 a
Motion To Quash Or Cancel the April 24, 2002 order and the warrant of arrest itself. In an order dated June 25, 2002, respondent judge denied the motion, relying on the ruling in
Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals that the posting of bail allegedly waived any defects in the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Complainant countered that under
Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, admission to bail does not bar the accused from challenging the validity of the arrest and the legality of the warrant, provided such objections are raised before entering a plea, and she asserted that since she and her husband had not yet been arraigned, they still had the right to question the warrants. Complainant further alleged that prior to the robbery case, they had filed against Lique a pending case for
acts of lasciviousness involving their nine-year old daughter
Brenda Almonte, and that the robbery complaint was allegedly filed maliciously to compel them to drop the earlier charge. Respondent judge, in his
Comment dated March 10, 2003, admitted conducting the preliminary investigation on April 24, 2002, issuing the warrant after finding
probable cause, and fixing bail at
P40,000 each. He stated that although he did not issue subpoenas to the accused, the omission was an honest mistake, not due to ignorance, and he added that his April 24, 2002 order was affirmed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, which eventually filed the information in the Regional Trial Court. With respect to the denial of the motion to quash/cancel, respondent judge reproduced the reasoning of the June 25, 2002 order, explaining that there were allegedly two stages of preliminary investigation and that the second stage, requiring subpoenas and counter-affidavits, would occur only after arrest and detention. The matter proceeded in the Court with the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluating the administrative complaint and recommending that it be treated as a regular administrative matter and that respondent judge be fined
P10,000 for
gross ignorance of the law, with a reprimand and a warning for repetition. The Court required the parties to manifest willingness to submit based on the pleadings, and, after thorough examination, found the complaint meritorious, concluding that respondent judge’s handling of preliminary investigation and his reliance on outdated waiver doctrine showed
gross violation of the Rules and the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
Issues:
Whether respondent
Judge Fred A. Bien committed
gross ignorance of the law and
gross violation of the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct when he allegedly disregarded the required procedure for
preliminary investigation and when he denied complainant’s motion to quash based on an erroneous waiver theory relating to the posting of bail.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: