GUTIERREZ V. HERNANDEZ

June 8, 2007 | Garcia, J. | Administrative Case initially filed with the Office of Court Administrator | Arrests

PETITIONER: P/Supt. Alejandro Gutierrez, PCI Antonio Ricafort, SPO4 Ricardo Ong, SPO1 Arnulfo Medenilla RESPONDENT: Judge Godofredo Hernandez, Sr. SUMMARY: Agents from the PNP with the crew of ABS-CBN’s “Private Eye” led by Gus Abelgas acted on a complaint which led to a rescue operation of 5 girls from a KTV Bar in Mindoro. Criminal charges were thereafter filed. Several weeks after, complainants (members of the rescue team + TV crew) learned that 4 out of the 5 girls rescued withdrew their complaints against PO2 Ringor, et.al. and instead filed charges against them before respondent Judge Godofredo Hernandez. It was later discovered that warrants of arrest were issued against them by the respondent judge just 1 day after the charges were filed. Petitioners filed an admin case against Hernandez when he set the arraignment for the cases even without information being filed. DOCTRINE: Rule 112, Sec 6 (b) also permits judges to issue warrants of arrest while the investigation is underway when 3 conditions concur. The judge must: 1. Have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; 2. Be satisfied that probable cause exists; and 3. That there be a need to place the respondent under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

FACTS: 1. A rescue operation was conducted by petitioners following a complain by one Ernesto Cruz which was brought to their office through Gus Abelgas’ TV Program, Private Eye. Complaint of Cruz held that his daughter was allegedly recruited at a KTV Bar. 2. The team was able to rescue 5 young girls (which includes Enresto Cruz’ daughter) from the house of one Salvador Napolitano who claimed that a certain PO23 Jose Ringor was responsible for bringing the women to such place. 3. Complaint for violation of RA 9208 was filed before the City Prosecutor against PO2 Ringor, his recruiter and wife and a certain Bebang. Corresponding Information was filed. 4. Several weeks later, petitioners were surprised after discovering that cases for grave coercion and qualified trespass had been filed against them and the TV Crew before the sala of respondent judge. 5. Apparently, some of the rescued girls retracted their complaint and instead filed a case against herein petitioners. 6. Petitioners alleged that PO2 Ringor brought the girls to a beach resort where he threatened and coerced them into signing complaint against herein petitioners and that J Hernandez also went to the beach house and conferred with PO2 Ringor regarding retraction of complaint. 7. It is also alleged that after such coercion and conference, SPO2 Ringor and J Hernandez and others had a drinking spree where J Hernandez was seen being entertained by two GROs given by one SPO2 Balacana. 8. Because of this, petitioners filed Administrative Complaint with Office of Court Administrator (OCA) alleging as well gros negligence on the part of J Hernandez for 1) issuing warrant of arrests in inordinate haste and without the required preliminary examination and personal etermination of probable cause and for 2) setting for arraignment without Informations having been filed in court. 9. OCA found that respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of procedural rules. But since this is the first complaint and because Hernandez had compulsorily retired, OCA only recommended that he be fined. ISSUE/S:

1. WON Respondent Judge commited grave ignorance of procedural rules – YES

RULING: OCA findings and recommendations upheld. RATIO: 1. Sec. 3 of Rule 112 requires that in a preliminary investigation, after complainant and his witnesses present their affidavits, respondent shall be subpenad and within 10 days from receipt of subpoena, shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witness. 2. It is apparent that petitioners were never issued subpoenas and were consequently deprived of their right to file counter-affidavits. 3. Warrants of arrest were issued without complying with the requisite conditions. Complaints against herein petitioners were filed on August 23, 2004. Motion for the issuance of warrant of arrest was filed the next day and respondent Judge immediately granted such and issued a warrant of arrest that same day. 4. Indubitably, no preliminary investigation was conducted as no subpoena was issued to herein complainants 5. Sec. 6, Par (b) of Rule 112 holds that without waiting for the conclusion of investigation, judge may issue warrant of arrest if 3 conditions are met (see Doctrine). 6. Issuance was clearly irregular, it did not show any finding of a need to place complainant under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 7. Even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory that he issue a warrant of arrest. He must further determine the necessity of placing respondent under immediate custody. 8. A worse display of gross ignorance was for holding arraignment knowing fully well that no preliminary investigation had been conducted and no informations had yet been filed. It is inexcusable for a Judge of 12 years to make such mistake. 9. Compassion works in respondents favor, what with the fact that this is his first administrative case after more than a decade of judicial service, let alone the circumstance that he has already compulsorily retired. OCAs recommended penalty of FINE appears in order.