G.R. No. MTJ-00-1312. February 28, 2001
GERARDO UBANDO-PARAS, Chief of Police, complainant, vs. JUDGE OCTAVIO A. FERNANDEZ, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Chief of Police Gerardo Ubando-Paras charged respondent Judge Octavio A. Fernandez with Irregularity in the Performance of Official Duty concerning Criminal Case No. 2477-N for Illegal Possession of Firearms. The complainant alleged that after arresting the accused, Vicente Joaquin, respondent judge ordered his release on March 3, 1997, upon a purported cash bond of P60,000.00. However, certifications from the Clerk of Court indicated no such cash bond was filed, and the case records were not with her office. The complainant further asserted that despite follow-ups and a motion to remand the case to the Provincial Prosecutor, the respondent took no action on the preliminary investigation.
In his Comment, respondent judge explained that he set bail at P60,000.00 after the accused’s wife complained of extortion by arresting officers and pleaded for affordable bail, and after informing the public prosecutor. He claimed the accused deposited a PNB check for the amount. Respondent stated he did not immediately remand the case, as under the rules, he was required to first conduct a preliminary investigation, determine probable cause, and then forward his resolution to the Provincial Prosecutor for review. He averred that he eventually dismissed the case for lack of probable cause and forwarded the records.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure in handling the criminal case.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found that respondent exhibited gross ignorance of procedural law on two critical points. First, he erroneously accepted a personal check for P60,000.00 as bail to secure the accused’s release. This directly contravened Section 14, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which explicitly requires a cash deposit to be made with the nearest revenue collector or municipal treasurer, followed by submission of a certificate of deposit. Accepting a check is a clear violation of this mandatory rule.
Second, respondent failed to promptly transmit the records of the case after his preliminary investigation. Section 5 of Rule 112 mandates the investigating judge to forward the entire records and his resolution to the provincial or city fiscal within ten days after the investigation concludes. Respondent’s delay and the initial absence of any record of transmittal, as noted by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Clerk of Court’s certification, constituted a dereliction of this duty. While a later prosecutor’s resolution was presented, it did not excuse the initial procedural lapses. Judges are duty-bound to know and apply fundamental rules of procedure. A fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) was imposed on Judge Fernandez.