6/14/2017 A.M. No.

MTJ-05-1581

TodayisWednesday,June14,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

A.M.No.MTJ051581February28,2005

PETERL.SESBREO,complainant,
vs.
JUDGEGLORIAB.AGLUGUB,MetropolitanTrialCourt,Branch2,SanPedro,Laguna,Respondent.

RESOLUTION

TINGA,J.:

Peter L. Sesbreo filed a Verified Complaint1 dated March 2, 2004 against respondent judge, Hon. Gloria B.
Aglugub,chargingthelatterwithGrossIgnoranceoftheLaw,NeglectofDutyandConductPrejudicialtotheBest
InterestoftheServicerelativetoCriminalCaseNo.39806entitledPeoplev.EnriqueMarcelino,etal.

Itappearsthatcomplainantfiledthree(3)separatecomplaintsagainstEnriqueMarcelino(Marcelino),SusanNuez
(Nuez),EdnaTabazon(Tabazon)andFelyCarunungan(Carunungan),allfromtheTrafficManagementUnitofSan
Pedro,Laguna,forFalsification,GraveThreatsandUsurpationofAuthority.Thethree(3)caseswereassignedto
respondentjudgesbranchandsubsequentlyconsolidatedfordisposition.

After conducting a preliminary examination, respondent issued a Consolidated Resolution2 dated May 6, 2003,
dismissingthecasesforFalsificationandGraveThreatsforlackofprobablecause,andsettingforarraignmentthe
case for Usurpation of Authority. Except for Marcelino who failed to appear during the arraignment, all of the
accusedwerearraigned.RespondentjudgeissuedawarrantforMarcelinosarrest.

Subsequently,complainantfiledaPrivateComplainantsUrgentManifestation3datedFebruary6,2004allegingthat
theaccusedwerealsochargedwithviolationofRepublicActNo.104(R.A.10)andprayingthatwarrantsofarrest
belikewiseissuedagainstalloftheaccused.

Actinguponthismanifestation,respondentjudgeissuedanOrder5datedFebruary12,2004statingthatacharge
forviolationofR.A.10wasindeedallegedinthecomplaintforUsurpationofAuthoritybutwasnotresolveddueto
oversight. However, since the statute only applies to members of seditious organizations engaged in subversive
activitiespursuanttoPeoplev.Lidres,6andconsideringthatthecomplaintfailedtoallegethiselement,respondent
judgefoundnoprobablecauseanddismissedthechargeforviolationofR.A.10.Further,citingSec.6(b),Rule112
oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure(Rules),respondentjudgedeniedcomplainantsprayerfortheissuance
ofwarrantsofarrestagainsttheaccusedandorderedtherecordsforwardedtotheProvincialProsecutorsOffice
(PPO)forreview. 1a\^/phi1.net

Thereafter, complainants counsel, Atty. Raul Sesbreo (Atty. Sesbreo), filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
Urgent ExParte Motion for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Against NonAppearing Accused. Respondent judge,
however, did not act on these motions allegedly because the court had already lost jurisdiction over the case by
then.

ThePPOaffirmedrespondentsorderandremandedthecasetothecourtforfurtherproceedingsonthechargeof
UsurpationofAuthority.

During the hearing of the case on February 14, 2004, Tabazon, Carunungan and Nuez did not appear. Atty.
Sesbreo,however,didnotmovefortheissuanceofwarrantsofarrestagainstthem.Neitherdidheobjecttothe
cancellationofthescheduledhearing.

Theforegoingcircumstancesbroughtaboutthefilingoftheinstantadministrativecomplaint.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/am_mtj_05_1581_2005.html 1/5
6/14/2017 A.M. No. MTJ-05-1581
ComplainantcontendsthatrespondentjudgeviolatedSec.6(b),Rule112oftheRuleswhensherefusedtoissue
warrants of arrest against the accused. Complainant also faults respondent judge for allegedly motu proprio
reconsideringherConsolidatedResolutiondatedMay6,2003andfailingtoorderitstransmittaltotheOfficeofthe
Ombudsmanwithinten(10)days.

InherComment With Motion To Dismiss The Administrative Complaint7datedMarch26,2004,respondentjudge

countersthattheissuanceofawarrantofarrestisdiscretionaryuponthejudge.Sinceshefoundnoindicationthat
theaccusedwouldabscond,shefounditunnecessarytoissuethewarrant.Moreover,underRepublicActNo.6770,
otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the PPO has been designated as the Deputized Ombudsman
Prosecutor. The PPO can take action on similar cases for review and appropriate action. Thus, she acted in
accordancewithlawwhensheforwardedtherecordsofthecasetothePPOforreviewandnottotheOfficeofthe
Ombudsmanascomplainantinsists.

RespondentjudgefurtheraccusescomplainantandAtty.Sesbreooffalsification,andthelatterofviolationofRule
1.01 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly, the affidavit which was attached to the
instant verified complaint was not notarized by Atty. Raul Corro as indicated therein. Further, Atty. Sesbreo was
allegedlyconvictedofHomicideandmayhavebeensuspendedfromthepracticeoflaw.

Complainant reiterates his allegations in his Complainants Reply To Respondents Comment Dated March 26,
20048 dated May 11, 2004. He further contends that there is no provision in the Ombudsman Act of 1989
specificallydeputizingthePPOtobethe"DeputizedOmbudsmanProsecutor"asrespondentjudgecontends.He
adds that respondent judge failed to comply with Administrative Order No. 8 since she has yet to forward her
resolutiontotheDeputyOmbudsman.

Moreover,complainantpointsoutthattheaffidavitattachedtohiscomplaintwasnotarizedbyAtty.Corroascertified
byamemberofthelattersstaff.ComplainantalsodisprovesrespondentjudgesallegationthatAtty.Sesbreoisin
the habit of filing administrative complaints against judges, explaining that the latter merely acted as counsel for
litigantswhofiledadministrativecomplaintsagainstcertainjudges.

InanotherVerifiedComplaint9filedonMarch18,2004,complainantfurtherchargesrespondentwithviolatingSec.
9(b),Rule112oftheRules.

Respondent Judge filed a Comment With Motion To Dismiss Administrative Complaint10 dated May 7, 2004
clarifying that contrary to complainants allegation, she did not conduct a preliminary investigation in the case for
UsurpationofAuthority.WhatwassubmittedforpreliminaryinvestigationwasthechargeforviolationofR.A.10.It
washerresolutiondismissingthechargeforviolationofR.A.10whichwastransmittedtothePPOforappropriate
action.However,sincethechargesforviolationofR.A.10andUsurpationofAuthoritywerecontainedinasingle
complaint,respondentjudgedeemeditpropertoforwardtheentirerecordstothePPO.

Complainant filed a Complainants Reply To Respondents Comment Dated May 7, 200411 dated May 20, 2004
substantiallyreiteratinghisallegations.

TheVerified Complaint filed on March 18, 2004 was treated as a supplemental complaint per the notation in the
Memorandum12datedJune25,2004.

Insum,complainantassertsthatrespondentjudgeerredinconductingapreliminaryinvestigationforthechargeof
UsurpationofAuthorityinnotissuingwarrantsofarrestforfailureoftheaccusedtoappearduringtrialinissuing
herOrderdatedFebruary12,2004dismissingthecomplaintforviolationofR.A.10andintransmittingtherecords
ofthecasetothePPOinsteadoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman. 1awphi1.nt

TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorrecommendsthattheinstantcomplaintbedismissedforlackofmeritbutthat
respondent judge should be reminded to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.13 It made the
followingfindings:

A careful consideration of the records as well as the pertinent rules reveals that there is nothing in the Rules of
Criminal Procedure which requires a judge to issue a warrant of arrest for the nonappearance of the accused
duringthetrial.Hence,itsissuancerestsonthesounddiscretionofthepresidingjudge.Moresointhiscase,the
privateprosecutordidnotmovefortheissuanceofsuchwarrant.

Asregardsthenextissue,Rep.ActNo.10penalizesapersonwho,withorwithoutpretenseofofficialposition,shall
performanyactpertainingtotheGovernment,ortoanypersoninauthorityorpublicofficer,withoutbeinglawfully
entitledtodoso,shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentofnotlessthantwo(2)yearsnormorethanten(10)years.
ViolationthereofiscognizablebytheRegionalTrialCourtbutsubjecttopreliminaryinvestigation.

Respondentjudgeadmittedthatsheoverlookedthechargewhensheconductedthepreliminaryexaminationofthe
complaints. Nonetheless, after reviewing the case, respondent Judge found no probable cause and ordered the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/am_mtj_05_1581_2005.html 2/5
6/14/2017 A.M. No. MTJ-05-1581
dismissalofthecase.Therefore,whenrespondentJudgemotuproprioorderedthedismissalofthecaseforlackof
probablecause,shewasactinginaccordancewiththeprocedureonpreliminaryinvestigationlaiddowninSec.3,
Rule112oftheRulesonCriminalProcedure.

RespondentJudgealsodirectedthattherecordsofthecasebeforwardedtotheProvincialProsecutorsOfficeon
review. Sec. 5 of Rule 112 provides that the resolution of the Investigating Judge is subject to review by the
provincialorcityprosecutor,ortheOmbudsmanorhisdeputy,asthecasemaybe.

ItisrespondentJudgescontentionthattheresolutionshallbereviewedbytheProvincialProsecutor.Sheexplained
thatpursuanttotheOmbudsmanActof1989,theProvincialProsecutorhasjurisdictiontotakecognizanceofthe
chargeofViolationofR.A.No.10.

However, Sec. 31 of Rep. Act No. 6770 or "The Ombudsman Act of 1989" provides that prosecutors can (be)
deputizedbytheOmbudsmantoactasspecialinvestigatororprosecutoronlyoncertaincases.Suchprovisionis
notapplicabletotheissueathand.Therefore,respondentJudgeerredwhensheforwardedthecaseforreviewto
theProvincialProsecutorsOffice.Nonetheless,complainantfailedtoshowthatrespondentJudgewasmotivatedby
badfaithwhensheissuedtheassailedorder.Atmost,sheisguiltyofjudicialerrorforwhichshecouldnotbeheld
administrativelyaccountableabsentanyproofoffraudorotherevilmotive.14

Apreliminaryinvestigationisrequiredbeforethefilingofacomplaintorinformationforanoffensewherethepenalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.15 Thus, a
preliminaryinvestigationisnotrequirednorwasoneconductedforthechargeofviolationofArt.177oftheRevised
PenalCodewhichispunishablebyprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumandmediumperiodsorfromsix(6)months
andone(1)daytofour(4)yearsandtwo(2)months.16

Thisbeingso,Sec.9,Rule112oftheRulesisapplicable.Saidsectionprovides:

Sec.9.CasesnotrequiringapreliminaryinvestigationnorcoveredbytheRuleonSummaryProcedure.

(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court.If the complaint or information is filed with the Municipal Trial Court or
MunicipalCircuitTrialCourtforanoffensecoveredbythissection,theprocedureinsection3(a)ofthisRuleshallbe
observed.Ifwithinten(10)daysafterthefilingofthecomplaintorinformation,thejudgefindsnoprobablecause
after personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant
andhiswitnessesintheformofsearchingquestionsandanswers,heshalldismissthesame.Hemay,however,
requirethesubmissionofadditionalevidence,withinten(10)daysfromnotice,todeterminefurthertheexistenceof
probablecause.Ifthejudgestillfindsnoprobablecausedespitetheadditionalevidence,heshall,withinten(10)
days from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable cause, he shall
l^vvphi1.net

issueawarrantofarrest,oracommitmentorderiftheaccusedhadalreadybeenarrested,andholdhimfortrial.
However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may issue
summonsinsteadofawarrantofarrest.

Under the foregoing section, if a complaint or information is filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court, the
procedurelaiddowninSec.3(a),Rule112oftheRulesshallbeobserved.Ifthejudgefindsnosufficientgroundto
holdtherespondentfortrial,heshalldismissthecomplaintorinformation.Otherwise,heshallissueawarrantof
arrest,oracommitmentorderiftheaccusedhadalreadybeenarrested,andholdthelatterfortrial.However,the
judgeisgiventhediscretiontomerelyissuesummonsinsteadofawarrantofarrestifhedoesnotfinditnecessary
toplacetheaccusedundercustody.

Itisthusnotobligatorybutmerelydiscretionaryupontheinvestigatingjudgetoissueawarrantforthearrestofthe
accused even after having personally examined the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching
questionsforthedeterminationofwhetherprobablecauseexists.Whetheritisnecessarytoplacetheaccusedin
custodyinordernottofrustratetheendsofjusticeislefttothejudgessoundjudgment.17

Moreover,thejudgeisnotrequiredtotransmittherecordsofthecasetotheprosecutorforreview.

Inthiscase,respondentjudge,followingtheforegoingprocedure,foundprobablecausetoholdtheaccusedfortrial
for the charge of Usurpation of Authority and forthwith set their arraignment and the pretrial. There is nothing
irregularinthecourseofactiontakenbyrespondentjudge.

Neither is there merit in complainants contention that respondent judge should have issued a warrant of arrest
againsttheaccusedfortheirfailuretoappearduringtheinitialpresentationofevidencefortheprosecutionforthe
chargeofUsurpationofAuthority.Theissuanceofawarrantofarrestfornonappearanceoftheaccusedduringtrial
isdiscretionaryuponthejudge.Indeed,thereisnothingintheRuleswhichrequiresajudgetoissueawarrantof
arrestfornonappearanceoftheaccusedduringtrial.

Respondentjudgeconcedes,however,thatduetooversight,shefailedtoruleonthechargeofviolationofR.A.10
in her Consolidated Resolution dated May 6, 2003. Nonetheless, she asserts in her Comment With Motion To
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/am_mtj_05_1581_2005.html 3/5
6/14/2017 A.M. No. MTJ-05-1581

DismissAdministrativeComplaint18datedMay7,2004thatsheconductedapreliminaryinvestigationforthecharge
of violation of R.A. 10 and dismissed the charge after taking into consideration the affidavits and evidence
presented. Complainant does not dispute the fact that indeed a preliminary investigation was conducted for this
charge.19 Thus, when respondent judge dismissed the complaint for violation of R.A. 10, she merely did so to
correctanoversight.

Furthermore,astheOrderdatedFebruary12,2004confirms,itwasthedismissalofthechargeforviolationofR.A.
10thatwaselevatedtothePPOforreview.Itwasimprudent,however,forrespondentjudgetotransmittheentire
recordsofthecasetothePPOknowingthatthechargeforUsurpationofAuthoritywasincludedintherecordsof
thecase.Respondentjudgeshouldhaveensuredthatatleastonecompletesetoftherecordsremainedinhersala
sothattheprosecutionforUsurpationofAuthoritywouldnotbeheldup.Injudiciousthoughheractuationwas,we
donotagreewithcomplainantthatrespondentjudgewasmotivatedbyanevilintenttodelaythecase.

This brings us to the issue of whether respondent should have transmitted her Order dated February 12, 2004
dismissing the charge of violation of R.A. 10 to the Office of the Ombudsman instead of the PPO. Complainant
asserts that since the charge of violation of R.A. 10 is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the
Ombudsmanhastheprimaryjurisdictiontoreviewtheresolutionofdismissal.

ThisissueisansweredbyAdministrativeOrderNo.820entitledClarifyingandModifyingCertainRulesofProcedure
oftheOmbudsman,whichprovides"thatallprosecutorsarenowdeputizedOmbudsmanprosecutors."Moreover,"
[R]esolutions in Ombudsman cases21 against public officers and employees prepared by a deputized assistant
prosecutorshallbesubmittedtotheProvincialorCityProsecutorconcernedwhoshall,inturn,forwardthesameto
theDeputyOmbudsmanoftheareawithhisrecommendationfortheapprovalordisapprovalthereof.TheDeputy
Ombudsmanshalltakeappropriatefinalactionthereon,includingtheapprovalofitsfilingintheproperregularcourt
orthedismissalofthecomplaint,ifthecrimechargedispunishablebyprisioncorreccionalorlower,orfineofnot
more than P6,000.00 or both. Resolutions involving offenses falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
shallbeforwardedbytheDeputyOmbudsmanwithhisrecommendationthereontotheOfficeoftheOmbudsman."

Thus,respondentjudgedidnoterrandwas,infact,merelyactinginaccordancewithlawwhensheforwardedthe
case for violation of R.A. 10 to the PPO. The fact that the PPO remanded the case to the court for further
proceedingsinsteadofforwardingthesametotheDeputyOmbudsmanasrequiredbyAdministrativeOrderNo.8is
quiteanothermatter.Inanyevent,respondentjudgeshouldhavetakenthenecessarystepstoremedythelapsein
ordertoprecludedelayinthedispositionofthecase.

In sum, for liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the
performanceofofficialdutiesmustnotonlybefoundtobeerroneousbut,mostimportantly,itmustbeestablished
that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty or some other like motive. Respondent judges actuations are hardly
indicative of bad faith or any motive to delay the case which characterizes the offense of gross ignorance of the
law.22

INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,theinstantcomplaintisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.RespondentJudgeGloriaB.
AglugubisADMONISHEDtobemorecircumspectintheperformanceofherdutiesinthefuture.

SOORDERED.

Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.15.

2Id.at15.

3Id.at6668.

4Thepertinentprovisionreads:

Sec.1.Anypersonwhowithorwithoutpretenseofofficialposition,shallperformanyactpertainingto
theGovernment,ortoanypersoninauthorityorpublicofficer,withoutbeinglawfullyentitledtodoso,
shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentfornotlessthantwoyears,normorethantenyears.
5Supra,note1at3638.

6108Phil.995(1960).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/am_mtj_05_1581_2005.html 4/5
6/14/2017 A.M. No. MTJ-05-1581
7Supranote1at5159.

8Id.at95104.

9Id.at113117.

10Id.at127131.

11Id.at163174.

12Id.at109112.

13TheOCAfurtherrecommendsthatthecomplaintofrespondentjudgeagainstAtty.RaulH.Sesbreobe
referredtotheOfficeoftheBarConfidantforproperdisposition.MemorandumdatedJanuary6,2005.

14Id.at181182.

15Sec.1,Rule112,Rules.

16SeeArts.177and76,RevisedPenalCode.

17P/Supt.SeverinoCruzandFranciscoMonederov.JudgeAreola,428Phil.373(2002).

18Id.at127131.

19Complainantavers:

"Simplystated:(1)DespitethefactthatviolationofArt.177,Rev.PenalCodeisNOTtobesubjected
to preliminary investigation, respondent subjected it to preliminary investigation, together with the
complaintforviolationofSection1,RepublicActNo.10"

Id.at166.
20November12,1990.

21 An Ombudsman Case is defined as a complaint filed in or taken cognizance of by the Office of the
Ombudsman charging any public officer or employee including those in government owned or controlled
corporations,withanactoromissionallegedtobeillegal,unjust,improperorinefficient.
22Pesaycov.Layague,A.M.No.RTJ041889,December22,2004.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/am_mtj_05_1581_2005.html 5/5