A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628. June 8, 2007. P/SUPT. ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, PCI ANTONIO RICAFORT, SPO4 RICARDO G. ONG, and SPO1 ARNULFO MEDENILLA, complainants, vs. JUDGE GODOFREDO G. HERNANDEZ, SR., respondent.
FACTS

Complainants, police officers from the CIDD, conducted a rescue operation in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, saving five minors allegedly trafficked. They subsequently filed a complaint for violation of RA 9208 against certain individuals, including PO2 Jose Ringor. Later, four of the rescued minors retracted their statements and instead filed criminal complaints for grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling against the complainants, a TV reporter, and a relative. These cases were docketed in the Municipal Trial Court presided over by respondent Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr.
The complainants alleged that the respondent judge issued warrants of arrest against them with undue haste, forgoing the mandatory preliminary examination and personal determination of probable cause. They further claimed he set the cases for arraignment even though no formal Informations had been filed with the court. Additionally, they accused him of impropriety, alleging he was seen at a beach resort conferring with PO2 Ringor and a lawyer about the retraction and new complaints, followed by a drinking spree with GROs.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure based on his handling of the criminal cases filed against the complainants.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure. The Supreme Court found that the judge committed serious procedural lapses. He issued warrants of arrest without personally determining probable cause through a preliminary examination, as required by the Rules of Court. He merely relied on the affidavits-complaints and a motion for early issuance of a warrant, failing to notify the accused to submit counter-evidence, thereby violating their right to due process. Furthermore, he scheduled the cases for arraignment despite the absence of filed Informations, which is a basic violation of an accused’s right to be formally informed of the charges.
The Court emphasized that a judge is expected to have a working knowledge of fundamental procedural rules. For a judge with twelve years of service, such errors are inexcusable and constitute gross ignorance. However, considering it was his first administrative offense and he had already compulsorily retired, the Court mitigated the penalty. He was fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The other charges of impropriety and misconduct were not substantiated with sufficient evidence.