Del Rosario, Jr. v. Bartolome
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mariano del Rosario, Jr. filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness on behalf of his minor daughter, Jennifer, against Roderick Lazaro. Later the same day, a motion was filed to amend the charge to attempted rape. An amended complaint for attempted rape was filed after additional statements were taken. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Nicasio Bartolome issued an Order finding prima facie evidence for acts of lasciviousness but no evidence for attempted rape. He stated that the complainant's thought of amending the complaint to attempted rape operated as an abandonment of the previous case and that the complainant appeared to have lost interest. Consequently, he dismissed the case and referred the matter of the amended complaint to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for further action. He also ordered the release of the accused unless held on other charges. The Petition: The complainant requested the immediate forwarding of records to the Provincial Prosecutor, expressing concern that the release order increased the possibility of the accused fleeing. The complainant also manifested that the accused should not be released as he was being held on another charge due to the amended complaint. After the accused's release, he could no longer be located. The complainant then filed the instant letter-complaint against the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. Whether the respondent judge erred in dismissing the case and referring the amended complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor. Whether the respondent judge erred in ordering the release of the accused.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ordered him to pay a fine of P8,000.00, with a stern warning against future similar conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment: The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Revised Penal Code imposes penalties for acts of lasciviousness that fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs). For crimes cognizable by MTCs, a preliminary investigation is not required, as it is only warranted for offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Therefore, it was patent error for the respondent judge to conduct a preliminary investigation after the complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed, as none was required. To compound this error, he passed the responsibility of conducting the preliminary investigation for attempted rape, an offense also cognizable by his court, to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor when he should have done it himself. Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court states that the prosecution of an offense falling under the jurisdiction of the RTC is commenced by filing the complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. Being among the appropriate officers enumerated in Section 2 of Rule 112, the respondent judge's failure to follow these basic commands of the law and the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law. On whether the respondent judge erred in dismissing the case and referring the amended complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor: The respondent judge erred in dismissing the case and referring the amended complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor. The offense of acts of lasciviousness is punishable by prision correccional, which has a duration of six months and one day to six years, falling under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts. Similarly, attempted rape is also an offense that would fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC. Therefore, the respondent judge should have conducted the preliminary investigation himself for both offenses, rather than dismissing the case and referring it to the Provincial Fiscal. His theory that the filing of the amended complaint constituted an abandonment of the previous case was also flawed, as the amended complaint was filed to correct or clarify the charge, not to abandon the prosecution. On whether the respondent judge erred in ordering the release of the accused: The respondent judge's justification for the release of the accused, based on his long detention without a warrant of arrest, did not absolve him. While the motion to reduce bail filed by the accused could be considered a waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest, this did not negate the respondent judge's procedural errors in handling the preliminary investigation and the referral of the case. The premature release of the accused, especially when he could no longer be located thereafter, further compounded the respondent judge's missteps and demonstrated a lack of diligence and adherence to proper legal procedures.
Main Doctrine
A Municipal Trial Court judge commits gross ignorance of the law when he conducts a preliminary investigation for an offense cognizable by his court, and refers the amended complaint for an offense also cognizable by his court to the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, when he should have conducted it himself.