G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737; February 9, 2011
Case Title: Lydelle L. Conquilla, Complainant, vs. Judge Lauro G. Bernardo, Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Bulacan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lydelle L. Conquilla filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Lauro G. Bernardo for usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from a criminal case for direct assault filed against Conquilla on July 4, 2008. On July 8, 2008, respondent judge conducted a proceeding, found probable cause to hold complainant for trial, and issued a warrant for her arrest, fixing bail at ₱12,000. On July 10, 2008, upon complainant’s motion, he reduced the bail to ₱6,000, which she posted. Complainant alleged that under A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (effective October 3, 2005), first-level court judges no longer have authority to conduct preliminary investigations; thus, the judge’s actions constituted gross ignorance of the law. She also alleged an improper proposition from the judge’s wife regarding the case’s dismissal in exchange for debt cancellation and a loan. In his Comment, respondent judge defended his issuance of the arrest warrant as an act in good faith to prevent frustration of justice, arguing that the power to determine probable cause for a warrant cannot be revoked. He denied knowledge of his wife’s alleged actions. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for violating A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC but found the usurpation charge without merit, recommending a ₱20,000 fine.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lauro G. Bernardo is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for conducting a preliminary investigation and issuing a warrant of arrest, in violation of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC which removed such authority from first-level court judges.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Court found that respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation, as evidenced by his July 8, 2008 Order stating he examined witnesses and found probable cause to hold complainant for trial, and his subsequent order setting the case for arraignment. This was a direct violation of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which amended Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, effective October 3, 2005, and explicitly removed the authority to conduct preliminary investigations from judges of first-level courts (Municipal Trial Courts, etc.). Under the amended rules, only prosecutors and other authorized officers may conduct preliminary investigations. The crime of direct assault, with a penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 6 years), required a preliminary investigation. Respondent judge’s claim that he was merely determining probable cause for a warrant was untenable; his actions constituted a full preliminary investigation. His defense of good faith and technical relaxation was rejected. The charge involving his wife was dismissed for lack of substantiation. Considering his previous administrative sanctions, the Court imposed a FINE of ₱40,000 for gross ignorance of the law, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.