Cabiao v. Sardido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Enriquito Cabilao and Ronald Mart Dayot, Area Sales Director and Territory Sales Manager of La Tondeña, Inc., respectively, were in the courtroom of respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) Judge Agustin T. Sardido for a hearing in a Grave Oral Defamation case filed against Cabilao. Prior to the hearing, the respondent Judge inquired about settling the defamation case, to which Cabilao responded that his counsel was absent. The hearing was postponed. As complainants were leaving the courtroom, they were served with a Warrant of Arrest issued by the respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. 1917 for Robbery, filed by the same complainant in the defamation case. The warrant was issued on the same day, November 27, 1992. The complainants faced immediate detention if they could not post bail of P16,000.00. They managed to secure the bail amount to avoid detention. Procedural History: Complainants filed a sworn complaint against respondent Judge for "grave ignorance of the law, gross misconduct and abuse of discretion" in issuing the warrant of arrest. They alleged that the Judge issued the warrant knowing they would be present, without prior notice, and that the service of the warrant was timed to prevent them from posting bail. They further alleged that the Judge never conducted a preliminary examination in writing and under oath with searching questions and answers to determine probable cause, contrary to the certification he issued. The respondent Judge, in his Comment, averred that he usually adopts the questions and answers prepared by the police investigator due to the volume of cases and that he conducted the preliminary examination twice, convincing him of the existence of probable cause. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P5,000.00. The case was referred to an investigating judge for further investigation. During the investigation, complainants expressed their desire not to attend and to withdraw their complaint due to their work. The investigating judge recommended that the respondent judge be absolved with a warning. The Supreme Court, however, found that the respondent judge acted with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: Complainants assailed the legality and propriety of the warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge, alleging grave ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and abuse of discretion in the performance of his functions. They contended that the preliminary examination was not conducted in accordance with law, specifically the requirement of written searching questions and answers, and that the issuance and service of the warrant were calculated to harass them.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest without conducting a preliminary examination in writing and under oath with searching questions and answers. Whether the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the actuations of the respondent Judge and the complainant in Criminal Case No. 1917 reveal a scheme to harass the complainants; and whether the complainants were arrested without a copy of the affidavit and opportunity to submit counter-affidavits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found that respondent Judge acted with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. A fine of P5,000.00 was imposed upon him with a stern warning that commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest: The Court held that the procedure described in Section 6 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is mandatory, and failure to follow it amounts to a denial of due process. For inferior courts to issue warrants of arrest, the judge must be satisfied that probable cause exists through an examination under oath and in writing of the complainant and his witnesses, in the form of searching questions and answers. The respondent judge admitted that he failed to meet these requirements, excusing it as a consequence of overwork. However, the Court found his excuse to be a "lame excuse" and an "afterthought." The Court noted the irregularity that the criminal complaint for Robbery was filed on November 27, 1992, but the respondent judge claimed to have conducted a preliminary investigation on November 26, 1992, a day before the complaint was filed. Furthermore, the respondent judge's failure to intimate to the complainants about the robbery complaint and their impending arrest, despite speaking with them earlier that day about a different case, made the warrant of arrest appear as an "ambush" warrant. The Court emphasized that the deprivation of a citizen's liberty through a warrant of arrest is not a matter to be dealt with casually, and any wanton disregard of established processes is a serious matter. The Court concluded that the respondent judge's admission of ignoring the requirements of Rule 112, Section 6(b) due to pressure of work did not absolve him from the finding of gross ignorance of the law. The Court also clarified that there is no requirement for the entire preliminary investigation procedure to be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued, but the judge must be satisfied of the existence of probable cause and the necessity of immediate custody. On the contention that the circumstances surrounding the arrest reveal a scheme to harass the complainants; and on the contention that they were arrested without a copy of the affidavit and opportunity to submit counter-affidavits: The Court reiterated its ruling in Pangandaman vs. Casar that there is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued. The Rule provides that no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed without completing that procedure, but not that the procedure must be completed before a warrant of arrest may issue. Section 6 of Rule 112 authorizes the municipal trial court to order an arrest even before opening the second phase of the investigation if the court is satisfied that probable cause exists and there is a necessity for immediate custody to prevent frustrating the ends of justice. The Court also reaffirmed that the rule on arrest after preliminary examination, as modified by Republic Act 3888, requires an examination of the witnesses to the complaint, under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers, before an arrest may be ordered.
Main Doctrine
A judge who fails to conduct a preliminary examination in accordance with the requirements of Rule 112, Section 6(b) of the Rules of Court, particularly the requirement of an examination under oath and in writing in the form of searching questions and answers, acts with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion, even if the pressure of work is cited as an excuse.