G.R. No. MTJ-00-1324. October 5, 2005
Joaquin Roberto Gozun, et al., Complainants, vs. Judge Vinci G. Gozum, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants were among the accused in a complaint for Destructive Arson filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Floridablanca, Pampanga, presided by respondent Judge Vinci G. Gozum. On September 9, 1998, respondent Judge conducted a preliminary examination of the complainants for the complainants, Roberto David and Jimmy Sotto, without notifying the accused-complainants. During this proceeding, the private prosecutor for the arson complainants was allowed to directly examine his own clients. After questioning the witnesses, respondent Judge found probable cause and issued warrants of arrest with no bail recommended, leading to the arrest and detention of the accused-complainants from September 12 to November 11, 1998.
Subsequently, the case was reinvestigated by the Provincial Prosecutor, who found probable cause only for the lesser offense of Simple Arson against one complainant and dismissed the charges against the others. The Secretary of Justice later set aside this resolution and ordered the withdrawal of the Information, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court. In this administrative complaint, the accused-complainants charge respondent Judge with Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Ignorance of the Law for conducting an ex parte preliminary investigation, improperly allowing the private prosecutor’s participation, and issuing warrants based on insufficient examination.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Grave Abuse of Authority in his conduct of the preliminary examination and issuance of the warrants of arrest.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court clarified that the proceeding conducted was a preliminary investigation, not merely a preliminary examination for a warrant of arrest. Under the rules then in force, a judge conducting a preliminary investigation must follow the procedure under Rule 112, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court. This procedure explicitly states that while parties may be present during clarificatory hearings, they have no right to examine or cross-examine witnesses. The judge alone must propound the questions.
By allowing the private prosecutor to directly examine the complainants, respondent Judge abdicated his judicial duty and violated this clear procedural rule. This act constituted gross ignorance of the law, defined as a judge’s utter disregard of simple, elementary, and well-known rules. The Court emphasized that the authority to ask searching questions is a personal and non-delegable duty of the investigating judge to ensure an impartial determination of probable cause. His defense of having ample discretion was untenable, as discretion must be exercised within the bounds of the law. For this infraction, and considering it was his second similar offense, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.