A.M. No. MTJ-97-1114 - Del Rosario, Jr. vs. Bartolome

On July 1, 1996, Mariano del Rosario, Jr., acting on behalf of his minor daughter Jennifer, filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against Roderick Lazaro before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 10273.
On the same day, a motion was filed to amend the initial complaint to include the charge of attempted rape.

After additional statements were taken from the complainants, an amended complaint for attempted rape was filed in the same court.
On July 5, 1996, Judge Nicasio Bartolome conducted a preliminary examination by questioning the prosecution witnesses (Rosalia del Rosario and Jennifer del Rosario) and issued an Order finding prima facie evidence to support the original charge of acts of lasciviousness.

The Order noted that the testimonies did not support the charge of attempted rape since there was no evidence of any attempt by the accused to consummate the crime.
It further held that the complainant’s subsequent filing for attempted rape signified an abandonment of the initial complaint, thus leading to dismissal of the case with instructions to refer the matter of the amended complaint to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, Malolos, Bulacan.
The Order also directed the release of the accused, Roderick Lazaro, unless he was held on other charges, despite a parallel motion by the accused to reduce his bail.

In response to the Order, the complainant requested that the records be forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, arguing that the release order might enable Lazaro to abscond and noting that he was still held under the charge of attempted rape.
After the release, Lazaro could not be located, heightening concerns about possible evasion.
Consequently, Mariano del Rosario, Jr. filed a letter-complaint on July 26, 1996, expressing dissatisfaction with the handling of the case and the release of the accused.

In his October 25, 1996, comment, Judge Bartolome defended his actions by asserting that:

The filing of the amended complaint for attempted rape effectively abandoned the original complaint for acts of lasciviousness.
Given that the accused was detained without a warrant of arrest prior to the complaint, his release was necessary pending proper charge formulation.

The case was subsequently referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation.
Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez scrutinized the judge’s conduct, contending that his decision to embark on a preliminary investigation—a process unnecessary for offenses under the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts—exemplified gross ignorance of the law.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P10,000.00, along with a stern warning regarding any similar future conduct.

The higher court concurred with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, while opting to reduce the fine to P8,000.00.
The decision underscored the misapplication of procedural rules by the respondent judge, particularly his undertaking of a preliminary investigation that was not mandated by law, and his improper delegation of the investigation of the amended complaint to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.

Whether Judge Bartolome committed gross ignorance of the law by conducting a preliminary investigation for an offense under the exclusive jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts, where such investigation was not required.

The Court had jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, for which a preliminary investigation is not necessary.

Whether the filing of the amended complaint for attempted rape constituted an abandonment of the original complaint for acts of lasciviousness, thereby justifying the judge’s actions regarding the dismissal and release order.

The procedural implications of amending the complaint and the ensuing responsibilities of the trial court were scrutinized.

Whether the justification provided by the respondent—in particular, the necessity of releasing the accused due to his prolonged detention without a warrant of arrest and the motion to reduce bail—was sufficient to excuse his misapplication of the procedural rules.