Facts:
PROSECUTOR JAIME E. CONTRERAS, Complainant, filed administrative charges against
JUDGE EDDIE P. MONSERATE, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, arising from events that transpired between November 25 and December 5, 2000 and culminating in this Court's decision on August 20, 2003. On November 25, 2000 a stabbing incident occurred and the accused, Mario Zabaldica, voluntarily surrendered to the police; a criminal complaint for frustrated homicide was filed with the MCTC of Magarao-Canaman and officially docketed as Criminal Case No. 3222 on November 27, 2000. On November 28, 2000 the accused, through counsel, filed an Ex Parte Motion to Fix Bail which respondent granted that same day, and on December 5, 2000 respondent ordered Zabaldica's release upon corporate bond and issued an order directing that the records be sent to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office for filing of an information, stating that the accused had failed to avail of his right to preliminary investigation pursuant to
Section 7, Rule 112. The Provincial Prosecution Office, through its Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and approved by the Provincial Prosecutor, charged respondent with
gross ignorance of the law and
gross neglect of duty for forwarding the case without conducting the requisite preliminary investigation; the records were returned on January 19, 2001 with a directive from Prosecutor Contreras to conduct a preliminary investigation and judicial administrative proceedings followed, with the Office of the Court Administrator recommending sanction in its April 11, 2002 report and this Court rendering judgment finding respondent liable and imposing a fine.
Issues:
Did respondent err in forwarding Criminal Case No. 3222 to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor without conducting a preliminary investigation as required by
Section 3, Rule 112? Did
Section 7, Rule 112 permit respondent to treat the accused’s failure to avail himself of preliminary investigation as a waiver authorizing direct filing of an information? Did respondent’s actions constitute
gross ignorance of the law and
neglect of duty warranting administrative sanction?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: