D2019. LAW 124: Criminal Procedure. Prof. Bautista.

Gutierrez vs. Hernandez, Sr.,

June 8, 2007, Garcia, J.

Procedure for issuance of warrant of arrest

COMPLAINANTS: P/SUPT. ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, PCI ANTONIO RICAFORT, SPO4 RICARDO G.
ONG, and SPO1 ARNULFO MEDENILLA
RESPONDENT: JUDGE GODOFREDO G. HERNANDEZ, SR.,
COMPLAINT:
Administrative case (From joint-complaint affidavit) filed with the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) by complainants (all from the Criminal Investigation and Detective Division (CIDC) of the PNP)
against Respondent Judge from MTC Oriental Mindoro for
o Gross ignorance of the law;
o Impropriety;
o Grave misconduct;
o Conduct unbecoming of a judge; and
o Lack of integrity to continue as a member of the judiciary.
SUBSTANTIAL FACTS:
Complainants allege that Gus Abelgas (from ABSCBNs Private Eye TV Program) accompanied
Ernesto Cruz to Camp Crame QC to file a complaint involving Cruzs minor daughter who was allegedly
recruited in Malabon to work in a KTV bar in Oriental Mindoro
The next day complainants conducted rescue operation accompanied by Cruz, Gus Abelgas, and the
crew members of the TV program who took footage of the operation
CCID was able to rescue 5 children including the daughter of Cruz
Owner of the house claimed that PO2 Jose Ringor (allegedly a member of PNP in Oriental Mindoro)
brought the women there for safekeeping
As a result of the rescue operation, complaint for violation of RA 9208 in relation to RA 7610 was filed
against PO2 Ringor, et al. Minors were turned over to DSWD
Information was filed and warrants of arrest with no bail recommended were issued against PO2 Ringor
et al
Several weeks after, cases for grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling was filed against those
who conducted the search operation before the sala of respondent judge
Apparently, the rescued girls (except of Cruz daughter) retracted their complaint against PO2 Ringor
and instead filed grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling against the complainants
Filed administrative case against respondent judge for
o Issuing warrants of arrest in inordinate haste, forgoing the mandatory conduct of preliminary
examination and personal determination of probable cause in contravention of the provisions of
the Rules of Court and in denial of complainants constitutional rights to due process; and
o Setting the said criminal cases for arraignment without the requisite Informations having yet
been filed in court.
There were also allegations that the 4 rescued girls were taken to Oriental Mindoro to force them to
sign the complaint against those who rescued them and retraction of complaints against PO2 Ringor et
al. Respondent judge was also there participating in a drinking spree and being entertained by GROs
OCA findings: respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of procedural rules. Judge already retired so
only fine was imposed
SC agrees with OCA recommendation
PROCEDURAL FACTS
Ernesto Cruz, Gus Abelgas, and ABSCBN crew went to Camp Crame to file complaint involving Cruz
minor daughter who was allegedly recruited in Malabon to work in a KTV bar in Oriental Mindoro

D2019. LAW 124: Criminal Procedure. Prof. Bautista.

Complainants et al conducted rescue operations and rescued 5 girls in Oriental Mindoro, Including
Cruz daughter
Case was filed against PO2 Ringor et al
August 23, 2004 -4 girls retracted their complaint and filed grave coercion and qualified trespass
to dwelling against the complainants instead
August 24, 2004 motion for the issuance of warrant of arrest against Ernesto Cruz was filed.
Respondent Judge granted motion and issued warrant of arrest (SAME DAY)
Sept. 8, 204- Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint was filed by the 4 girls identifying the
members of the CIDD rescue team including Gus Abelgas. On the same day, respondent Judge
granted motion and issued Arrest Warrants
Complainants filed administrative case against respondent Judge for gross ignorance of procedural
rules
OCA recommended that respondent judge was guilty
SC agree with the recommendation

Administrative case against a MTC Judge

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS:
WON Respondent Judge was guilty of gross ignorance of procedural rules YES
DOCTRINES:
Inordinate haste attending the issuance of the warrants of arrest belies the conduct of
preliminary examination and personal determination of probable cause, in contravention of the
provisions of the Rules of Court, and constituting a denial of due process
Conditions for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest by Municipal Judge during a Preliminary
Investigation. The investigating judge must:
o Have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by
searching questions and answers;
o Be satisfied that a probable cause exists;
o That there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
It is improper for a municipal judge to issue a warrant of arrest without any finding that it was
necessary to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent frustration of the ends of
justice
The procedure described in Section 6(b) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and
failure to follow the same would amount to a denial of due process.
A judge, in setting a criminal case for arraignment and hearing knowing fully well that no
preliminary investigation had been conducted and no information had yet been filed before his
court, clearly violates the right of the accused to due process, to be informed of the accusation
against him, and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment

CASE RESOLUTION:
Section 1, Rule 112 of ROC requires preliminary investigation in cases cognizable by the MTC for an
offense where penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day without regard to the
fine
Section 3 of Rule 112 of ROC explicitly provides for the procedure to be followed in the conduct of a
preliminary investigation
Complainants were never issued any subpoena to accord them the opportunity to file counter-affidavits
to adduce evidence controverting the alleged criminal complaints against them before the respondent
judge issued warrants of arrest

D2019. LAW 124: Criminal Procedure. Prof. Bautista.

warrants of arrest were issued without complying with the requisite conditions therefor. Hastily issued
on the same day the motions were filed
preliminary examination and personal determination of probable cause, in contravention of Section 6,
par. (b) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, and constituting a denial of due process.
The investigating judge must:
o Have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by
searching questions and answers;
o Be satisfied that a probable cause exists;
o That there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
In this case, there was no preliminary investigation and there was no showing that the complainants
needed to be put under immediate custody
Even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory for him to issue a warrant of arrest. He must
further determine if there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice
procedure described in Section 6(b) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and failure to follow
the same would amount to a denial of due process
respondent judge was also ignorant for setting the criminal cases for arraignment and hearing knowing
fully well that no preliminary investigation has been conducted and no informations have been filed yet
before his court
This clearly violates complainants right, as accused in those cases, to due process, to be informed of
the accusation against them and to have a copy of the Information before arraignment.
DISPOSITION: Respondent Judge GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure. Ordered to pay fine
of 20K to be deducted from his retirement benefits
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
N/A
RELEVANT PROVISION:
Section 3 of Rule 112 of ROC
Sec. 3. Procedure.The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits
of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish the probable
cause.
xxxx
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if
he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching
to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
xxxx
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and
documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other
supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn
to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of his section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the
complainant. The respondent shall be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit
Zyra Aquilizan