A.M. No. MTJ-94-979 October 25, 1995
Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili, RTC-Branch 10, Aparri, Cagayan, complainant, vs. Judge Adolfo B. Molina, MCTC, Gonzaga-Sta. Teresita, Cagayan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili charged respondent Judge Adolfo B. Molina with grave ignorance of the law for issuing a warrant of arrest in a homicide case (People v. Rolando Anama). The complainant alleged that the respondent, in conducting the preliminary investigation, based his finding of probable cause solely on the affidavits and testimonies of two witnesses, Mencelacion Padamada and Rosita Castillo. Their knowledge of the crime was derived entirely from information relayed by a certain Wilma Anama, who was not presented as a witness. Complainant argued this reliance on hearsay violated the constitutional mandate requiring a judge to personally determine probable cause from an examination under oath of the complainant and witnesses with personal knowledge.
In his Comment, respondent judge admitted issuing the warrant but argued that the ultimate responsibility for determining probable cause in cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court lay with the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, to which he had forwarded the case. He contended that any perceived weakness in the finding of probable cause should be addressed through a reinvestigation, not an administrative charge.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Adolfo B. Molina is administratively liable for issuing a warrant of arrest based on hearsay evidence.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that respondent failed to comply with the fundamental legal requirements for issuing a warrant of arrest. The constitutional and procedural rules mandate that a judge must personally determine the existence of probable cause from an examination under oath of the complainant and witnesses. Probable cause requires such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe an offense was committed by the accused.
The Court emphasized that hearsay evidence has no probative value and cannot, standing alone, justify a finding of probable cause. The rules of evidence explicitly state a witness can testify only to facts derived from personal perception. In this case, the sworn statements of the two witnesses were purely hearsay, as they merely recounted what Wilma Anama told them about the killing. Respondent judge erred in accepting these as a sufficient basis. His duty to personally and independently determine probable cause is non-delegable and cannot be shifted to the provincial prosecutor. The Court concurred with the Office of the Court Administrator’s evaluation and held the respondent fell short of the standard of legal knowledge expected of a magistrate. Consequently, the Court REPRIMANDED Judge Adolfo B. Molina for his failure to comply with the pertinent rules on the issuance of a warrant of arrest, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.