8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

SECONDDIVISION

LYDELLEL.CONQUILLA,

A.M.No.MTJ091737

Complainant,

Present:

CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,

NACHURA,

PERALTA,

versus

ABAD,and

MENDOZA,JJ.

JUDGELAUROG.BERNARDO,

MunicipalTrialCourt,

Bocaue,Bulacan

Promulgated:
Respondent.

February9,2011
xx

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

1/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

TheCase
Thisisanadministrativecomplaintforusurpationofauthority,gravemisconduct,andgross
ignoranceofthelawfiledbyLydelleL.Conquilla(complainant)againstJudgeLauroG.Bernardo
(respondentjudge),PresidingJudgeoftheMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)ofBocaue,Bulacan.

TheFacts
Inaverifiedcomplaintdated30July2008,complainantConquillachargedrespondentjudgewith
usurpationofauthority,gravemisconduct,andgrossignoranceofthelaw.

Complainantallegedthaton4July2008,acriminalcomplaintfordirectassaultwasfiledagainst
herbeforetheMTCofBocaue,Bulacan.ThecomplaintwassignedbyPoliceChiefInspector
RizalinoAndayaoftheBocauePoliceStation.

On8July2008,respondentjudgeconductedapreliminaryinvestigationandfoundprobablecause
toholdthecomplainantfortrialforthecrimeofdirectassault.Respondentjudgethenissueda
warrantofarrestdated8July2008,withthebailfixedatP12,000.

On10July2008,uponmotionofcomplainant,respondentjudgeissuedanorderreducingthebail
forcomplainantsprovisionallibertytoP6,000.Onthesamedate,complainantpostedcashbailof
P6,000forherprovisionalliberty.

Complainantthenfiledanadministrativecomplaint,allegingthatunderA.M.No.0508[2]6SC,
firstlevelcourtjudgesnolongerhavetheauthoritytoconductpreliminaryinvestigations.Thus,
complainantaversthatrespondentjudgecommittedanillegalactconstitutinggrossignoranceofthe
lawandprocedurewhenheconductedthepreliminaryinvestigationandissuedthewarrantof
arrest.Complainantclaimsthatthehastyissuanceofthewarrantofarrestwaswithoutlegalbasis
andunjustlyprejudicedcomplainantanddeprivedherofherliberty.Complainantsubmitsthat
respondentjudgeusurpedthepoweroftheprosecutor,whowasnotevengiventhechanceto
commentoncomplainantsMotiontoReduceBail.Furthermore,complainantallegesthatwhenshe
learnedaboutthewarrantofarrest,shecalledrespondentjudgeswife,whosaidshewouldhelpin
havingthebailreducedtoP6,000.00andwouldhavethecasefordirectassaultagainstherein
complainantdismissedprovidedhereincomplainantcancelthewifesdebtofP35,000.00and
providedthathereincomplainantloanthewifeanadditionalamountofP50,000.00.1

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

2/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

InhisComment,respondentjudgestatesthatheissuedthewarrantofarrestingoodfaithbecause
hewasconvincedthattherewasprobablecauseandthatitwasnecessarytoplacethecomplainant
underimmediatecustodytopreventafrustrationofjustice.Althoughrespondentjudgeknewthat
theSupremeCourtalreadyamendedRules112and114oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure
byremovingtheconductofthepreliminaryinvestigationfromjudgesoffirstlevelcourts,heargues
thatthepowertopersonallydetermineprobablecauseintheissuanceofawarrantofarrestcannot
berevoked.Besides,evenifsuchpowertodetermineprobablecausewasindeedrevokedbythe
amendment,respondentjudgesubmitsthattechnicalrulescanberelaxediftheirimplementation
willresultininjustice.

Respondentjudgefurtherstatesthathedidnotusurpthepoweroftheprosecutorwhenhereduced
thebailconsideringthatunderSection20ofRule114,thecourtmayincreaseordecreasethebail
upongoodcause.
Lastly,respondentjudgedeniesanyknowledgeoftheallegedconversationandtransactionbetween
complainantandhiswife.

TheOCAsReportandRecommendation

InitsReportdated12February2009,theOCAfoundrespondentjudgeguiltyofgrossignoranceof
thelawforhispatentandunjustifiedviolationoftheprovisionsoftheResolutioninA.M.No.058
26SC.TheOCAstatedthattheResolutioninA.M.No.05826SC,whichtookeffecton3
October2005,removedtheconductofinvestigationfromthescopeofauthorityoffirstlevelcourts
judges.Hadrespondentjudgebeenmoreprudentinunderstandingthepertinentprovisionsofthe
ResolutioninA.M.No.05826SC,whichareveryclearandconcise,noadministrativecomplaint
wouldhavebeenfiledagainsthim.

TheOCA,however,foundthechargeofusurpationofauthoritywithoutmerit.TheOCAagreed
withrespondentjudgethatthepowertodeterminetheamountofbailisvestedinthejudge.

TheOCArecommended(a)thattheadministrativecomplaintagainstrespondentjudgebere
docketedasaregularadministrativematterand(b)thatrespondentjudgebefinedintheamountof
P20,000.00forgrossignoranceofthelaw,withasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameor
similaroffenseshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.

TheRulingoftheCourt

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

3/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

Inthiscase,respondentjudgemakesitappearthathemerelyconductedapreliminaryexamination
forthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherprobablecauseexiststojustifytheissuanceofawarrantof
arrest.However,therecordsofthecaseclearlyshowthatrespondentjudgeindeedconducteda
preliminaryinvestigationon8July2008.Afterfindingprobablecausetoholdcomplainantfortrial
forthecrimeofdirectassault,respondentjudgethenissuedawarrantforherarrest.That
respondentjudgeconductedapreliminaryinvestigationandnotjustapreliminaryexaminationto
determineexistenceofprobablecausefortheissuanceofawarrantofarrestisevidentinhisOrder
dated8July2008,whichreads:

ORDER
Theundersigned,afterpersonalexaminationofthewitnessesinwritingandunderoath,findsthata
probablecauseexistsandthereissufficientgroundtoholdtheaccusedLYDELLEL.
CONQUILLAfortrialforthecrimeofDIRECTASSAULTaschargedinthecomplaint.Inorder
nottofrustratetheendsofjustice,thereisaneedtoplacetheaccusedinimmediatecustody.Letwarrant
immediatelyissueforhis[sic]arrestherebyfixingbailintheamountofP12,000.00forhisprovisional
liberty.2

SOORDERED.

Bocaue,Bulacan,July8,2008.

(signed)
HON.LAUROG.BERNARDO
Judge

Furthermore,aftercomplainantpostedbailon10July2008,respondentjudgethenissuedanOrder
dated10July2008,orderingthecomplainantsreleaseandsettingthecaseforherarraignmenton3
September2008.

TheconductofpreliminaryinvestigationbyrespondentjudgewasindirectcontraventionofA.M.
No.05826SC,whichtookeffecton3October2005,amendingRules112and114oftheRevised
RulesonCriminalProcedurebyremovingtheconductofpreliminaryinvestigationfromjudgesof
thefirstlevelcourts.Thus,underSection2ofRule112,onlythefollowingofficersareauthorized
toconductpreliminaryinvestigations:(a)ProvincialorCityProsecutorsandtheirassistants(b)
NationalandRegionalStateProsecutorsand(c)Otherofficersasmaybeauthorizedbylaw.
Furthermore,Section5ofRule112provides:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

4/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

SEC.5.Whenwarrantofarrestmayissue.

(a)BytheRegionalTrialCourt.Withinten(10)daysfromthefilingofthecomplaintorinformation,
thejudgeshallpersonallyevaluatetheresolutionoftheprosecutoranditssupportingevidence.Hemay
immediatelydismissthecaseiftheevidenceonrecordsclearlyfailstoestablishprobablecause.Ifhe
findsprobablecause,heshallissueawarrantofarrest,oracommitmentorderwhenthecomplaintor
informationwasfiledpursuanttosection6ofthisRule.Incaseofdoubtontheexistenceofprobable
cause,thejudgemayordertheprosecutortopresentadditionalevidencewithinfive(5)daysfromnotice
andtheissuemustberesolvedbythecourtwithinthirty(30)daysfromthefilingofthecomplaintor
information.

(b)BytheMunicipalTrialCourt.Whenrequiredpursuanttothesecondparagraphofsection1of
thisRule,thepreliminaryinvestigationofcasesfallingundertheoriginaljurisdictionofthe
MetropolitanTrialCourt,MunicipalTrialCourtinCities,MunicipalTrialCourtorMunicipal
CircuitTrialCourtSHALLbeconductedbytheprosecutor.Theprocedurefortheissuanceofa
warrantofarrestbythejudgeshallbegovernedbyparagraph(a)ofthissection.(Emphasissupplied.)

Clearly,MTCjudgesarenolongerauthorizedtoconductpreliminaryinvestigation.

Inthiscase,thecrimechargedagainstcomplainantwasdirectassaultagainstapublicschool
teacher,whoisapersoninauthorityunderArticle1523oftheRevisedPenalCode.4UnderArticle
148oftheRevisedPenalCode,whentheassaultiscommittedagainstapersoninauthoritywhile
engagedintheperformanceofhisofficialdutiesorontheoccasionofsuchperformance,the
imposablepenaltyisprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumandmaximumperiods.Thedurationofthe
penaltyofprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumandmaximumperiodsis2years,4monthsand1day
to6years.Thus,theoffensechargedagainstcomplainantrequirestheconductofpreliminary
investigationasprovidedunderSection1ofRule112oftheRulesofCourt,whichreads:

SECTION1.Preliminaryinvestigationdefinedwhenrequired.Preliminaryinvestigationisaninquiry
orproceedingtodeterminewhetherthereissufficientgroundtoengenderawellfoundedbeliefthata
crimehasbeencommittedandtherespondentisprobablyguiltythereof,andshouldbeheldfortrial.

ExceptasprovidedinSection6ofthisRule,apreliminaryinvestigationisrequiredtobeconducted
beforethefilingofacomplaintorinformationforanoffensewherethepenaltyprescribedbylaw
isatleastfour(4)years,two(2)monthsand(1)daywithoutregardtothefine.(Emphasissupplied.)

ItwasthereforeincumbentuponrespondentjudgetoforwardtherecordsofthecasetotheOfficeof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

5/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

theProvincialProsecutorforpreliminaryinvestigation,insteadofconductingthepreliminary
investigationhimself.
Rule3.01,Canon3oftheCodeofJudicialConductmandatesthatajudgeshallbefaithfultothe
lawandmaintainprofessionalcompetence.Indeed,competenceanddiligenceareprerequisitesto
thedueperformanceofjudicialoffice.5Section3,Canon6oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct6
requiresjudgestomaintainandenhancetheirknowledgeandskillstoproperlyperformtheir
judicialfunctions,thus:

SEC.3.Judgesshalltakereasonablestepstomaintainandenhancetheirknowledge,skillsandpersonal
qualitiesfortheproperperformanceofjudicialduties,takingadvantageforthispurposeofthetraining
andotherfacilitieswhichshouldbemadeavailable,underjudicialcontrol,tojudges.

Whenalaworaruleisbasic,judgesoweittotheirofficetosimplyapplythelaw.Anythinglessis
grossignoranceofthelaw.7Judgesshouldexhibitmorethanjustacursoryacquaintancewiththe
statutesandproceduralrules,8andshouldbediligentinkeepingabreastwithdevelopmentsinlaw
andjurisprudence.9

Ontheallegedpromiseofrespondentjudgeswifethatthebailwouldbereducedprovidedher
P35,000debtwillbecancelledandthatcomplainantgrantrespondentjudgeswifeanadditional
loan,wefindthatcomplainantdidnotsubstantiateherallegation.Nevertheless,theCourtnotesthat
althoughrespondentjudgedeniesknowledgeofsuchtransactionbetweenhiswifeandcomplainant,
respondentjudgedidnotcategoricallydenyhiswifesdebttocomplainant.InhisComment,
respondentjudgestates:Assumingarguendothattherereallywasaloanmadebyhiswife,hedid
notknowofsuchtransactionbetweenhiswifeandthecomplainantandgiventhis,hedidnotallow
suchtransactiontotakeplace.10

Canon4oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductstressestheimportanceofproprietyandthe
appearanceofproprietytotheperformanceofalltheactivitiesofajudge.Respondentjudgeshould
bearinmindthatjudgesshouldavoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyinalloftheir
activities.11Furthermore,judgesandmembersoftheirfamiliesareprohibitedfromaskingforor
acceptinganygift,bequest,loanorfavorinrelationtoanythingdoneortobedoneoromittedtobe
donebyhiminconnectionwiththeperformanceofjudicialduties.12

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

6/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

Onrespondentjudgesissuanceofthewarrantofarrestandreductionoftheamountofbail,wefind
suchactsvoidforwantofjurisdiction.WhileRule114oftheRulesofCourtallowsajudgetogrant
bailinbailableoffensesandtoincreaseordecreasebail,itassumesthatthejudgehasjurisdiction
overthecase.Inthiscase,respondentjudgeconductedthepreliminaryinvestigationwithout
authorityandissuedthewarrantofarrest.Thus,theseactsarevoidforwantofjurisdiction.The
reductionofbailisalsovoidbecauseinthefirstplace,respondentjudgehadnojurisdictionoverthe
caseitself.

TheCourtnotesthatthisisrespondentjudgesthirdoffense.In2003,theCourtfoundrespondent
judgeadministrativelyliableforunduedelayinrenderingdecisionsandfinedhimP19,000,witha
sternwarningthatarepetitionofsimilaractswouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.13

Moreimportantly,inthe2008caseofSantosv.Bernardo,14theCourtfoundrespondentjudge
guiltyofgrossignoranceofthelawandbasicrulesofprocedureandfinedhimP20,000,witha
sternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.15The
Courtfoundnomeritinrespondentjudgessuppositionthatgravecoercionisanoffensenotsubject
topreliminaryinvestigation.TheCourt,however,emphasizedthatwhenthecomplaintwasfiledon
3January2006,respondentjudgenolongerhadauthoritytoconductpreliminaryinvestigationby
virtueofA.M.No.05826SC.Thus,theCourtheldthatrespondentjudgeshouldhavereferredthe
complainttotheOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorinsteadofissuingthesubpoenadirecting
complainantstoappearbeforetheCourt.
UnderSection8(9),Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,grossignoranceofthelaworprocedureis
classifiedasaseriouscharge,forwhichtheimposablepenaltyisanyofthefollowing:

1.Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeitureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCourtmaydetermine,and
disqualificationfromreinstatementorappointmenttoanypublicoffice,includinggovernmentownedor
controlledcorporation:Provided,however,thattheforfeitureofbenefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccrued
leavecredits
2.Suspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsformorethanthree(3)butnotexceedingsix
(6)monthsor
3.AfineofmorethanP20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.00.16

Consideringthatthisisrespondentjudgesthirdoffense,thesecondofwhichwasalsoforgross
ignoranceofthelaw,weholdthatthepenaltyofsix(6)monthssuspensionfromofficewithout
salaryandotherbenefitsisinorder.17

WHEREFORE,wefindrespondentJudgeLauroG.BernardoGUILTYofgrossignoranceofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

7/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

lawandSUSPENDhimfromofficeforaperiodofsix(6)monthswithoutsalaryandotherbenefits,
withasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractsshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTAROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

8/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

JOSEC.MENDOZA
AssociateJustice

1AdministrativeComplaintdated30July2008,p.3.
2Emphasissupplied.
3Art.152.PersonsinauthorityandagentsofpersonsinauthorityWhoshallbedeemedassuch.Inapplyingthe
provisionsoftheprecedingandotherarticlesofthisCode,anypersondirectlyvestedwithjurisdiction,whetherasan
individualorasamemberofsomecourtorgovernmentalcorporation,boardorcommission,shallbedeemedapersonin
authority.xxx
InapplyingtheprovisionsofArticles148and151ofthisCode,teachers,professors,andpersonschargedwiththe
supervisionofpublicordulyrecognizedprivateschools,collegesanduniversities,andlawyersintheactual
performanceoftheirprofessionaldutiesorontheoccasionofsuchperformanceshallbedeemedpersonsinauthority.
(Emphasissupplied.)
4Peoplev.Renegado,156Phil.260(1974).
5Canon6oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct.
6TheNewCodeofJudicialConductwasadoptedbytheSupremeCourtthroughA.M.No.030501SC,andwhichtook
effecton1June2004.
7Cabicov.DimaculanganQuerijero,A.M.No.RTJ021735,27April2007,522SCRA300.
8Savellav.Ines,A.M.No.MTJ071673,19April2007,521SCRA417.
9AmanteDescallarv.Ramas,A.M.No.RTJ082142,20March2009,582SCRA22Aguilarv.Dalanao,388Phil.717
(2000).
10RespondentjudgesComment,p.8.
11Section1,Canon4oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct.
12Section13,Canon4oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct.
13ReportontheJudicialAuditConductedintheMunicipalTrialCourt,Bocaue,Bulacan,A.M.No.00350MTC,21July
2003,407SCRA1.
14A.M.No.MTJ071670,23July2008,559SCRA310.

15InSantos,asidefromgrossignoranceofthelaw,respondentjudgewasalsochargedwithimproprietyforallowinghis
girlfriend(wholaterbecamehiswife)tostayinrespondentjudgeschamberforlongperiodsoftime,inviolationofRule2.01
oftheCodeofJudicialConducttomaintainproperdecorum.AlthoughtheCourtlikewisefoundthatthecomplainantstherein
failedtosubstantiateanymisuseofgovernmentfundsorfacilities,theCourt,nevertheless,remindedrespondentjudgeofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

9/10

8/26/2016

A.M.No.MTJ091737

NewCodeofJudicialConductwhichmandatesjudgestoavoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyinalloftheir
activities.
16Section11,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt.
17InthecaseofInRe:Minov.Navarro(A.M.No.MTJ061645,28August2007,531SCRA271),respondentJudge
Navarro,whohasbeenpreviouslysanctionedbytheCourtintwoothercases,wasmetedthepenaltyofsuspensionfromthe
serviceforsix(6)monthswithoutsalaryandbenefits,forgrossignoranceofthelaworprocedure.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ091737.html

10/10