AM 92 731; (November, 1996) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-92-731 November 29, 1996
Edna D. Depamaylo, complainant, vs. Judge Aquilina B. Brotarlo, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant, the widow of a slain police officer, charged respondent MCTC Judge with misconduct and ignorance of the law in handling the preliminary investigation and bail petition of the accused, Nerio Salcedo, who was charged with murder. The Chief of Police filed the murder complaint. During the bail hearing, the provincial prosecutor requested a resetting to study the petition, as he had not received the case records. Respondent judge denied the motion, claiming the matter was already submitted for resolution by the Chief of Police. She then granted bail and issued a resolution recommending the filing of a homicide charge instead of murder, a copy of which was not furnished to the complainant. The provincial prosecutor later filed a murder information in the RTC based on autopsy findings.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for her actions in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the bail proceedings.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is guilty of misconduct. Her justifications are legally untenable. First, she erroneously denied the provincial prosecutor’s request for postponement by claiming the Chief of Police had already submitted the bail matter for resolution. Under Rule 110, Section 5, a peace officer may prosecute only when “no fiscal is available.” The provincial prosecutor had already intervened, rendering the Chief of Police’s authority to submit the case for resolution without the prosecutor’s conformity improper. Second, she conducted the bail hearing without the three-day notice required by Rule 15, Section 4. Her claim of “good cause” based on the accused’s alleged illness was unsupported by any medical certificate or testimony. Third, she exceeded her authority by downgrading the charge from murder to homicide to justify bail. A judge conducting a preliminary investigation is only tasked to determine probable cause, not to definitively characterize the crime, which is the prosecutor’s function. Her hasty actions, denial of the prosecution’s opportunity to be heard, and reduction of the charge collectively manifest partiality. The Court found her guilty of misconduct and imposed a fine of P20,000.00 with a stern warning.