MAGO V.

JUDGE PEALOSA-FERMO
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 Pealosa-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. Magos 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.

(4) In re 5th position: Admitted. The clerk might have overlooked it. However, when the arraignment was scheduled, Magos 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 Judge administratively liable for her unfamiliarity with the rules on Preliminary Investigation. It was an irregularity and the Judge should not have allowed the Stenographer to handle the latter part of the proceedings. The Judge should have personally taken charge of the entire proceedings since the power to conduct Preliminary Investigations vests only on the Judge, not on the stenographer. She was fined P20,000 since it was only her first offense. The Court, on the recommendation 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, 1 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.

(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.

Then, as now, a PERSONAL EXAMINATION of the complainant in a criminal case and his witness/es was required. Under Rule 112 (1) In re 2nd position: Affidavits of the sheriffs witnesses were attached to the record. BEFORE its amendment, the Investigating Fiscal was required to (2) In re 3rd position: Admitted. After a complaint is filed, Judge certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized Fermo prepares her questions for preliminary examination based on officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses. 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 1 to read/study the question and request that they write down their Judges of first level courts are now no longer authorized to conduct preliminary answers to the questions for the Stenographers to finalize. This is a investigation (effective October 3, 2005 per Resolution dated August 30, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on convenient procedure which makes it easier for the Stenographers Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from and the witnesses considering the cramped office space. After the Judges of the First Level Courts). witnesses are briefed, the stenographers take over since the prepared sheets are given to them so they could propound the questions and Under Rule 112, 2: Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. The following may conduct preliminary investigations: the answers are typed directly.

Judges position:

(3) In re 4th position: The PI was on JULY 19 not July 20. It was on July 20 that she found (a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants; probable cause and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest. According to the (b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; (c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and Warrant Officers Return of Service, Mago was arrested on JULY 21.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.

By the Judges delegation of the examination of the sheriffcomplainant 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 judicial system.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA