G.R. No. MTJ-97-1114 April 4, 1997
Mariano Del Rosario, Jr. vs. Judge Nicasio Bartolome, MTC, Sta. Maria, Bulacan

FACTS

Complainant Mariano del Rosario filed a criminal complaint for acts of lasciviousness on behalf of his minor daughter against Roderick Lazaro. The same day, a motion was filed to amend the charge to attempted rape, and an amended complaint for attempted rape was subsequently submitted. Respondent Judge Nicasio Bartolome conducted a preliminary examination and issued an order finding prima facie evidence only for acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. He then dismissed the case, reasoning that the amended complaint for attempted rape operated as an abandonment of the original complaint. He ordered the accused’s release and referred the amended complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor for further action. The accused was subsequently released and could no longer be located.
The complainant filed an administrative case against Judge Bartolome for gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. In his comment, the respondent judge defended his order, arguing that the filing of the amended complaint constituted abandonment of the original and that the accused’s release was necessary due to prior detention without a warrant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Nicasio Bartolome is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear and centers on jurisdictional and procedural errors. First, the original complaint was for acts of lasciviousness, punishable by prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years). Under the law, this offense is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. For such crimes cognizable by the MTC, a preliminary investigation is not required; it is only mandated for offenses within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Therefore, it was a patent error for the judge to conduct a preliminary investigation for the acts of lasciviousness charge.
Second, when the complaint was amended to attempted rape—an offense within the jurisdiction of the RTC—the judge erroneously referred it to the Provincial Prosecutor. Under the Rules of Court, the prosecution of an RTC offense is commenced by filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for a preliminary investigation, which includes municipal judges. The judge, being such an authorized officer, should have conducted the requisite preliminary investigation for the amended complaint himself instead of dismissing the case and referring it. His failure to follow these basic procedural rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law. His justification for the accused’s release does not absolve him of these fundamental errors. The Court imposed a fine of P8,000.00 with a stern warning.