A.M. No. MTJ-04-1532 - Almonte vs. Bien

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-04-1532)

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that the respondent judge, after what she described as an ex parte inquiry on Isauro Lique, issued an order dated April 24, 2002 directing the arrest of the complainant and her husband and fixing their bail for provisional liberty at P40,000 each. She asserted that the respondent judge disregarded the procedure for preliminary investigation under Section 3(b) and (c), Rule 112, Revised Rules of Court, and that she and her husband were deprived of due process because they were not furnished copies of the robbery complaint, were not summoned to appear, and were not given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting evidence.

After the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the setting of bail, the complainant, through counsel, filed on May 20, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 4598 a Motion To Quash Or Cancel The Order Dated April 24, 2004 Directing The Issuance Of The Warrant Of Arrest Of Accused Herein And Fixing The Bail Bond For Their Provisional Liberty And The Warrant Of Arrest Itself. In an order dated June 25, 2002, the respondent judge denied the motion. He relied on the Court’s ruling in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals that once an accused posted bail, the accused waived the right to question defects in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

The complainant countered that the respondent judge’s denial reflected ignorance of the controlling rule. She invoked Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that an application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of the arrest or the legality of the warrant, or from questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation, provided the objections are raised before entering the plea. She stressed that the complainant and her husband had not yet been arraigned and thus had the right to assail the warrants issued against them.

The complainant also alleged a retaliatory motive. She claimed that prior to the filing of the robbery case, she and her husband had filed against Lique a separate criminal case for acts of lasciviousness involving their nine-year-old daughter, Brenda Almonte, and that the case was still pending in the Regional Trial Court at Masbate, Branch 48 (Family Court). She asserted that Lique maliciously filed the robbery complaint to compel them to abandon their earlier case.

Respondent Judge’s Comment and Defense

In his COMMENT dated March 10, 2003, the respondent judge sought to place certain matters on record, including that he was Acting Presiding Judge of the MCTC in San Jacinto and San Fernando, Masbate, that he served as Judge-Designate of some inhibited cases in the MTCC in Masbate and the MCTC in Aroroy, Masbate, and that he was the Presiding Judge of the MCTC of Dimasalang, Masbate as his permanent station.

On the merits, the respondent admitted that he conducted a preliminary investigation on April 24, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 4598. He admitted that after finding probable cause, he issued the warrant of arrest and fixed bail for provisional liberty at P40,000 each. He also admitted that no subpoenas were issued to the accused, but characterized the omission as an honest mistake rather than due to ignorance of the law or procedure. He further claimed that his April 24, 2002 order was affirmed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Masbate City, and that the information for robbery was thereafter filed in the Regional Trial Court.

As to his denial of the complainant’s motion, the respondent reproduced the text of his June 25, 2002 order. He stated that when the motion was filed, the Regional Trial Court had already ordered release upon posting of the required bail. He then cited People vs. Rolito Go and held that posting bail waived defects in the issuance of the warrant of arrest, rendering the motion moot. He also reiterated that preliminary investigation had “two phrases or stages”: an initial ex parte preliminary examination stage to determine probable cause, followed by a second stage after arrest where subpoenas would issue and the accused would submit counter-affidavits and controverting evidence.

The respondent maintained that he correctly applied the rules and found no reason to quash the order and warrant.

Complainant’s Reply and Arguments

In her reply, the complainant maintained that the respondent judge issued the warrants without giving notice and an opportunity to file counter-affidavits and supporting documents. She argued that the respondent judge’s own claim of non-ignorance was unpersuasive given the manner and timing of the issuance of the warrants.

She further pointed out that the robbery complaint was filed directly with the municipal trial court without reporting the incident to the local barangay authorities or the Philippine National Police of San Jacinto, Masbate. She also contended that the respondent judge’s “two stages” explanation was misplaced because the procedure had been amended by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure effective December 1, 2000. She asserted that the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense charged in the way the respondent judge assumed, and that the warrant should not issue without awaiting the conclusion of preliminary investigation, subject to the rules governing when immediate custody may be necessary to prevent frustration of justice.

Court Administrator’s Evaluation and Procedural Handling

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended: (1) that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; (2) that the respondent judge be fined P10,000 for gross ignorance of the law; (3) that he be reprimanded as a member of the Philippine Bar for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with such reprimand reflected in his record at the Office of the Bar Confidant; and (4) that he be sternly warned that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

The Court redocketed the case as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest if they would submit the case for resolution on the pleadings. Both parties expressed willingness, which the Court noted in its resolution dated July 19, 2004.

The Court’s Assessment of the Core Issues

After reviewing the OCA evaluation and the records, the Court found merit in the OCA recommendation. It treated the root of the controversy as the respondent judge’s unfamiliarity with the rules on preliminary investigation in cases requiring it. The Court rejected the respondent judge’s theory that preliminary investigation still had two stages under the governing rules.

The Court cited Sangguniang Bayan of Batac, Ilocos Norte vs. Judge Efren Albano and reaffirmed in Bagunas vs. Fabillar, holding that under the new rules preliminary investigation had only one stage. Under the old rules, the investigating judge first conducted a preliminary examination to determine reasonable ground and likely guilt to justify a warrant, then conducted the preliminary investigation proper where the complaint or information was read to the accused after arrest and the accused had an opportunity to present evidence. The Court explained that Presidential Decree 911, which served as the basis of the present rule, removed the preliminary examination stage by integrating it into the preliminary investigation proper, such that the proceedings under the updated procedure were one stage.

Accordingly, the Court turned to Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and emphasized the mandatory steps: the complaint and supporting affidavits must be submitted with copies; the investigating officer must either dismiss or issue a subpoena within ten days attaching a copy of the complaint and supporting affidavits; the respondent must then submit counter-affidavits within ten days with copies furnished to the complainant. The rules further provide for the availability and examination of evidence and allow a hearing if facts require clarification.

The Court found that the respondent judge disregarded Section 3, Rule 112 in Criminal Case No. 4598. It noted that he took only the statement of Isauro Lique and terminated the investigation on the same day, immediately issuing warrants of arrest against the complainant and her husband. The Court found that the spouses were not furnished with copies of the robbery complaint, were denied the chance to examine the evidence submitted by Lique, and were not given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. The Court characterized these acts as reckless disregard of the accused’s right to due process and as reflecting either ignorance of procedural rules or their deliberate non-observance.

Misplaced Reliance on Rolito Go and Bail Rules

The Court also addressed the respondent

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-04-1532)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Thelma Almonte filed a verified, sworn administrative complaint directly with the Court against Judge Fred A. Bien, an Acting Presiding Judge of the 8th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San Jacinto-Monreal, 5th Judicial Region, Masbate.
The complaint charged gross ignorance of the law in connection with the respondent judge’s handling of preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 4598.
The Court redocketed the case as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest willingness to submit based on the pleadings.
Both complainant and respondent judge submitted for resolution based on the pleadings, which the Court noted in a subsequent resolution.
The matter reached decision after evaluation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) report and the records on hand.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant alleged that respondent judge conducted a “semblance of a preliminary investigation” through an ex parte inquiry on Isauro Lique, the complainant in the robbery case.
On April 24, 2002, respondent judge issued an order directing the arrest of complainant and her husband and fixed bail at P40,000 each for provisional liberty.
Complainant alleged violation of due process because respondent judge did not give her and her husband copies of the robbery complaint and did not summon them to appear and present counter-affidavits and supporting documents.
Complainant later filed, through counsel, a Motion To Quash Or Cancel the April 24, 2002 order directing issuance of the warrant of arrest and fixing bail, together with the warrant itself.
Respondent judge denied the motion on June 25, 2002, citing Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals for the proposition that posting bail waives defects in the issuance of the warrant.
Complainant asserted that denial was another manifestation of procedural ignorance, invoking Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Complainant further alleged a separate background dispute, stating that prior to the robbery filing by Lique, she and her husband filed a case for acts of lasciviousness against Lique involving their nine-year-old daughter, Brenda Almonte, pending before the Regional Trial Court at Masbate, Branch 48 (Family Court).
Complainant alleged that Lique maliciously filed the robbery charge to compel them to drop the lasciviousness case.

Respondent Judge’s Position

Respondent judge explained his court assignments and stations in his Comment, noting he acted as Acting Presiding Judge and had other judge-designate or presiding roles in inhibited or other courts.
Respondent judge admitted conducting a preliminary investigation on April 24, 2002 and issuing a warrant of arrest after finding probable cause.
Respondent judge admitted that no subpoenas were issued to the accused and characterized this omission as an honest mistake, not as ignorance or lack of diligence.
Respondent judge claimed that his April 24, 2002 order was affirmed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, which eventually filed an information for Robbery before the Regional Trial Court at San Jacinto, Masbate.
On the denial of the motion to quash or cancel, respondent judge reproduced his June 25, 2002 reasoning, emphasizing that upon posting bail the motion became moot and academic under People vs. Rolito Go.
Respondent judge also defended the warrant issuance by asserting that preliminary investigation had two stages: an initial ex parte preliminary examination followed later by a second stage requiring subpoenas and counter-affidavits after arrest.

Issues Framed for Resolution

The Court addressed whether respondent judge’s manner of conducting preliminary investigation and issuing the warrants of arrest violated Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The Court considered whether respondent judge’s reliance on Rolito Go was legally misplaced in view of Section 26, Rule 114 on whether bail constitutes a bar to objections on the legality of arrest or absence of preliminary investigation.
The Court determined whether the challenged acts amounted to gross ignorance of the law and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rule 3.01, Canon 3.

Governing Procedural Rules

The Court held that preliminary investigation under the new rules had only one stage after the Presidential Decree 911 framework integrated the former preliminary examination into the preliminary investigation proper.
The Court relied on Section 3, Rule 112 to describe the required sequence, including:
The complaint must state the respondent’s address and be accompanied by affidavits and supporting documents to establish probabl