A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737 - Conquilla vs. Bernardo

Complainant Lydelle L. Conquilla filed an administrative complaint against Judge Lauro G. Bernardo, the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bocaue, Bulacan.
The complaint charged the judge with usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law.

A verified complaint dated 30 July 2008 charged the judge with conducting a preliminary investigation in a case filed on 4 July 2008 for direct assault against the complainant, despite alleged limitations on such powers.
The criminal complaint was originally signed by Police Chief Inspector Rizalino Andaya.

On 8 July 2008, the judge personally conducted a preliminary investigation, found probable cause to hold Conquilla for trial, and subsequently issued a warrant of arrest with bail fixed at P12,000.
On 10 July 2008, upon the complainant’s motion, the judge issued an order reducing the bail to P6,000. The complainant then posted the cash bail accordingly.

Complainant contended that under A.M. No. 05-08-26-SC, first level court judges were stripped of the power to conduct preliminary investigations.
It was argued that by performing a preliminary investigation and issuing the warrant of arrest, the judge committed an illegal act, unjustifiably prejudicing the complainant’s rights and liberty.
Complainant further alleged that the judge’s wife had promised to facilitate a reduction of bail and the dismissal of the case in exchange for canceling her own P35,000 debt and for an additional loan of P50,000.

The judge asserted that he acted in good faith, based on his personal determination of probable cause to prevent a frustration of justice.
He claimed that even if the authority to conduct preliminary investigations had been revoked, the power to determine probable cause for a warrant of arrest should not be entirely removed from his discretion.
The judge also maintained that his decision to reduce bail did not usurp the power of the prosecutor, citing the discretion granted under Section 20 of Rule 114.
He denied any knowledge of the alleged transaction between his wife and the complainant.

In its report dated 12 February 2009, the OCA found the judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for violating the provisions of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which clearly removed the authority of first level court judges to conduct preliminary investigations.
The charge of usurpation of authority was dismissed as without merit, acknowledging that determining the amount of bail is within a judge’s powers.
The OCA recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the judge be fined P20,000, with a stern warning against repetition of such conduct.

Was the respondent judge authorized to conduct a full preliminary investigation and determine the issuance of a warrant of arrest, given that A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC removed such authority from first level court judges?
Is the issuance of the warrant of arrest, and the reduction of bail thereby, valid under the applicable rules and amendments?

Does the judge’s action of reducing bail encroach on the powers reserved for the prosecutor, particularly when technical rules are being relaxed based on claims of preventing injustice?
How does the alleged conversation involving the judge’s wife affect the evaluation of his conduct under the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Do the judge’s actions, in light of previous disciplinary records, constitute gross ignorance of the law sufficient to merit harsher sanctions?
What should be the appropriate sanctions considering this is the judge’s third offense, with two prior similar instances?