Mago vs. Penalosa-Ferno, 582 SCRA 1
Keywords:
Stenographer, probable cause,
A.M. NO. MTJ-08-1715,
MARCH 19 2009
FACTS: Rodolfo Mago
(“Mago”) filed before the MTC a complaint for GRAVE COERCION against Sheriff
Angeles of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (“DARAB”).
Sheriff Angeles filed a counter-charge for GRAVE THREATS against Mago and his sons.
Mago alleged that MTC Judge Peñalosa-Fermo (“Judge”) committed gross ignorance
of the law and bias in the disposition of his complaint and of the
counter-charge against him. Hence, Mago filed the present administrative
complaint.
Mago’s position:
(1)
Instead of summoning Sheriff Angeles for a Preliminary
Investigation, he received a complaint charging him and his sons with grave
threats.
(2)
The GRAVE THREATS case against him is purely fabricated and the
complainant in the said case was not Sheriff Angeles. Furthermore, the
affidavits of the witnesses in the said case could not be found in the records
of the MTC.
(3)
He and his witnesses attended the Preliminary Investigation of
the GRAVE THREATS case against him, and even without the assistance of counsel, they were examined through a prepared
set of questions handed to them by the stenographer. The Judge was not present
then.
(4)
On JULY 20 or right after the preliminary investigation, he was
immediately arrested and was imprisoned for 3 days and released after he posted
the P12,000 bail.(5) Arraignment was set beyond the period provided by the
Rules.(6) Despite the filing a Petition for Certiorari questioning the order of
the Judge in denying his motion to quash the information, the Judge continued
to direct him to appear at the pre-trial/preliminary conference.(7) Judge was
biased when hearing his case.
Judge’s position:
(1) In re 2nd
position: Affidavits of the sheriff’s witnesses were attached to the record.
(2) In re 3rd position: Admitted. After a
complaint is filed, Judge Fermo prepares her questions for preliminary
examination based on the affidavits of the complaining witness and counter
affidavits of the accused. This is done to make it easy for the Stenographers
to take/print the transcript of the proceedings. Some witnesses even ask to
read/study the question and request that they write down their answers to the
questions for the Stenographers to finalize. This is a convenient procedure
which makes it easier for the Stenographers and the witnesses considering the
cramped office space. After the witnesses are briefed, the stenographers
take over since the prepared sheets are given to them so they could propound
the questions and the answers are typed directly.
(3) In re 4th
position: The PI was on JULY 19 not July 20. It was on July 20 that she found
probable cause and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest. According to
theWarrant Officer’s Return of Service, Mago was arrested on JULY 21
(4) In re 5th
position: Admitted. The clerk might have overlooked it. However, when the
arraignment was scheduled, Mago’s counsel opposed it and filed a motion which
resulted in the resetting of the arraignment.(5) In re 6th position: The
petition was denied by the RTC for lack of merit.(6) In re 7th
position: Prior to the
filing of the complaints, she did not know any of them.
The Office of the Court Administrator (“OCA”) held
Judgeadministratively liable for her unfamiliarity with the rules onPreliminary
Investigation. It was an irregularity and the Judge shouldnot have allowed the
Stenographer to handle the latter part of theproceedings. The Judge should have
personally taken charge of theentire proceedings since the power to conduct
PreliminaryInvestigations vests only on the Judge, not on the stenographer.
Shewas fined P20,000 since it was only her first offense. The Court, on
therecommendation of the OCA, re-docketed the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not
Judge Fermo can delegate to the Stenographer the conduct of the Preliminary
Investigation.
HELD: NO.
PRIOR TO THE
AMENDMENT of Rules 112 and 114, MTC judges were empowered to conduct
preliminary investigations in which they exercised discretion in determining
whether there was probable cause to summon the respondent into court. An
officer to whom discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the
presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed competent to
exercise that discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in his
place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another.
Then, as now, a
PERSONAL EXAMINATION of the complainant in a criminal case and his witness/es
was required. Under Rule 112 BEFORE its amendment, the “Investigating Fiscal”
was required to“certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an
authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses.”
By the Judge’s
delegation of the examination of the sheriff-complainant in the GRAVE THREATS
case to the stenographer, and worse, by allowing the witnesses to read/study
the written questions to be propounded to them and to write their answers to
avoid inconvenience, Judge betrayed her lack of knowledge of procedure, thereby
contributing to the erosion of public confidence in the juridical system.
NOTES: Judges of first level courts are now no longer authorised
to coduct preliminary investigation (effective October 3, 2005 per Resolution
dated August 30, 2005 inA.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114
of the Revised Rules onCriminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of
Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts).
Under Rule 112, §2: Officers authorized to conduct preliminary
investigations. –
The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(e)
Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
(g)
National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(h)
Other officers as may be authorized by law.
· Lim v.
Felix, 194 SCRA 292
No comments:
Post a Comment