Ubando-Paras v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Gerardo Ubando-Paras, Chief of Police of General M. Natividad, Nueva Ecija, charged respondent Judge Octavio A. Fernandez with Irregularity in the Performance of Official Duty in connection with Criminal Case No. 2477-N, for Violation of P.D. No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms). The charge stemmed from the search of Vicente Joaquin's residence, where a firearm and bullets were confiscated. Vicente Joaquin was arrested and accused. Respondent judge ordered the release of the accused upon a cash bond of P60,000.00. The preliminary investigation was repeatedly reset, and no action was taken despite follow-ups. A motion to remand the case to the Provincial Prosecutor was unheeded. Certifications from the Clerk of Court indicated that no cash bond was filed and the case expediente was not with her office. Procedural History: The complainant alleged that the respondent judge should be administratively disciplined for erroneously ordering the release of the accused. The respondent judge, in his comment, explained that the case was endorsed to him for preliminary investigation. He stated that Joaquin's wife complained of illegal arrest and demanded money. After informing the public prosecutor and finding no objection, he set bail at P60,000.00, and Joaquin posted a PNB Check No. 381572. The respondent judge explained that he did not remand the case to the Provincial Prosecutor because he had to first investigate, determine probable cause, and then resolve the case before forwarding it for review. He claimed he dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and forwarded the resolution to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office for review. He later sent a copy of a resolution from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor denying a motion for reconsideration of the approval of the dismissal. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent judge with irregularity in the performance of official duty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Octavio A. Fernandez committed irregularity in the performance of official duty. Whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law in ordering the release of the accused and in handling the preliminary investigation.
Ruling
The respondent Judge Octavio A. Fernandez is found liable for irregularity in the performance of official duty with manifest ignorance of the law. He is ordered to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of irregularity in the performance of official duty: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that respondent Judge Fernandez manifested ignorance of the law when he erroneously applied P.D. 911 and the Judiciary Reorganization Act instead of the pertinent provisions of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure concerning preliminary investigations. Specifically, he failed to adhere to the prescribed procedures for conducting preliminary investigations, including the timelines for dismissal, issuance of subpoenas, submission of counter-affidavits, and resolution of the case. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's findings, holding the respondent liable for irregularity in the performance of official duty with manifest ignorance of the law. On the issue of gross ignorance of the law: The OCA also found that the respondent exhibited gross ignorance of the law when he ordered the release of the accused upon payment of a check for P60,000.00, contrary to Section 14 of Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which requires payment of a cash bond with the nearest collector of internal revenue or treasurer, and submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking. Furthermore, the respondent did not promptly transmit the records of the case as required by law. The Clerk of Court stated she was unaware of any resolution and that the records were kept in Llanera, Nueva Ecija, contradicting the respondent's claim that the resolution and expediente were forwarded to the prosecutor's office. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's findings, holding the respondent liable for gross ignorance of the law.
Main Doctrine
A judge who commits irregularity in the performance of official duty due to manifest ignorance of the law is liable and may be subject to a fine and warning.