A.M. No. MTJ-19-1928 - Arevalo vs. Posugac

The complainants are Juliana P. Arevalo and her sons, Souven P. Arevalo and Oscar P. Arevalo, Jr., who claim to be the lawful possessors of an agricultural land identified as Lot 56-GSS-306-D located in Pinamandayanan, Sitio Guruyan, San Ramon, Siruma, Camarines Norte.

The property was mortgaged to the complainants in 2006 by the heirs of Juan Serrano, the registered owner under OCT No. 387.

Two criminal cases for Grave Threats (Crim. Case Nos. S-11-1863 and S-11-1864) were instituted in August 2011 by Junelda A. Lombos, who also asserted her own claim of ownership over the subject land.

The accused (Juliana, her husband Oscar Arevalo, and their sons, among others) allegedly blocked a barangay road using cut trees and deployed armed men with jungle bolos.

Threatening remarks were uttered in a manner calculated to cast fear, dishonor, and discredit upon the complainant, with explicit language implying potential lethal force.

In Crim. Case No. S-11-1864, similar allegations were made against the accused (Juliana and Oscar Arevalo) during a barangay hearing, again involving threatening remarks aimed at demeaning the complainant and inciting fear.

The respondent judge, Presiding Judge Eli C. Posugac of the Municipal Trial Court in Siruma, Camarines Sur, issued warrants of arrest in both cases on August 31, 2011, and set bail at ₱12,000.00 per case.

On September 23, 2011, Juliana and Souven were arrested at their residence by the Philippine National Police; they were taken by surprise as they were not aware of any criminal proceedings against them.

Oscar, Jr., a high school student, was likewise arrested on September 26, 2011, upon visiting his detained family members.

The complainants were detained until September 27, 2011, when their motion to reduce bail to ₱3,000.00 was granted.

Following their release, the complainants left the subject land to avoid further fabricated cases by Junelda and her representative, Leonila B. Royo, who took possession of the disputed property.

On November 11, 2011, the respondent judge dismissed the consolidated criminal cases due to a lapse in the required preliminary investigation mandated when the imposable penalty exceeds a certain threshold.

The Provincial Prosecutor’s Office later dismissed both cases, citing insufficient grounds and inconsistencies in the factual accounts provided by the complainant.

Complainants initiated an administrative complaint against the respondent judge alleging grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of their constitutional right to due process and liberty.

They argued that the issuance of warrants of arrest was contrary to prescribed rules on summary procedure—as these cases should not involve a warrant of arrest—and that a preliminary investigation was mandatory given the penalty for the charges involved.

The complaint asserted that the wrongful and arbitrary arrests led to severe emotional distress, a lasting social disgrace, and a loss of trust in the law enforcement and judicial systems.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to the respondent judge, and his subsequent Consolidated Comment admitted errors but defended his actions as an honest oversight, lacking malice or bad faith.

Whether the respondent judge’s issuance of a warrant of arrest in cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure and where a preliminary investigation was required amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
Whether such issuance, characterized as an “honest oversight” by the respondent judge, still constitutes a violation affecting the complainants’ constitutional rights to due process, speedy disposition, and protection of liberty.
Whether the rectification of the procedural error after the arrests sufficiently mitigates or negates the charge of gross ignorance of the law or if such an act warrants administrative sanctions.
Whether the proper judicial conduct and the required observance of elementary rules in criminal procedure were breached, thus undermining public confidence in the judicial system.