FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-96-1109. April 16, 2001]
JOVENAL OPORTO, JR., complainant, vs. JUDGE EDDIE P. MONSERATE, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PARDO,
J.:
The Case
The case is an
administrative complaint[1] charging Judge Eddie P. Monserate
(hereafter, “Judge Monserate”), Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Magarao-Canaman,
Camarines Sur with “ignorance of the law, harassment and grave abuse of
discretion.”
The Facts
On October 31, 1995, Ms.
Lourdes A. Senar, the wife of the mayor of the town where the sala of Judge
Monserate was located, filed a complaint against Sonny Rada and complainant,
Jovenal Oporto, Jr. (hereafter, “Rada” and “Oporto”) for “violation of Article
172[2] in relation to Article 173[3] of the Revised Penal Code.” The complaint[4] was filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur and was docketed as Criminal Case No.
2811.[5] The complaint, however, was not under oath.[6]
On November 10, 1995,
Judge Monserate issued a warrant for the arrest of Oporto and co-accused
Rada. He fixed bail at fourteen
thousand pesos (P14,000.00) each.[7]
On January 26, 1996, on
the mistaken notion that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court, Judge Monserate conducted a preliminary investigation, declared
that there was probable cause and ordered that the records of the case be
forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor Office, Camarines Sur, for appropriate
action.[8]
On February 28, 1996, the
Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur [9] found that the crime committed was not
estafa but falsification, the penalty for which was prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00), and thus fell within the expanded jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. According to the Provincial Prosecutor,
there was no deceit, thus the crime was not “estafa through falsification of
commercial documents” but for falsification only. He remanded the case to the court of origin for further
proceedings.[10]
On July 9, 1996,
complainant Oporto filed with the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Naga
City, an administrative complaint charging Judge Monserate with “ignorance of
the law, harassment and/or grave abuse of discretion.”[11]
On July 18, 1996,
Executive Judge David C. Naval (hereafter, “Judge Naval”) found the complaint
to be sufficient in form and substance and required Judge Monserate to file a
responsive pleading within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order.[12]
On August 16, 1996,
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez wrote Judge Naval and requested
him to forward to the Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, the original of the administrative complaint considering
that he charges against Judge Monserate
“appear to be serious or perhaps less serious in nature.”[13]
On September 10, 1996, in
compliance with the request, Clerk of Court Rosario B. Torrecampo forwarded the
entire record of the case against Judge Monserate to the Office of the Court
Administrator, Supreme Court.[14]
On November 18, 1996,
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez submitted the following
recommendation to the Court:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that the above-entitled administrative case be given a regular
docket number and respondent Judge Eddie Monserate, be given a SEVERE REPRIMAND
for his failure to keep abreast with the latest laws, rulings and jurisprudence
affecting his jurisdiction and for his failure to be more circumspect of (sic)
his duty as a judicial officer with warning that a repetition of similar
offense will be severely dealt with by the Court.”[15]
On January 22, 1997, the
Court resolved to refer the case to the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Naga City for investigation, report and recommendation.[16]
On July 7, 1997,
Executive Judge Antonio N. Gerona submitted a report which stated that the case
against complainant Oporto was dismissed on June 10, 1997, due to the
prosecution’s lack of interest and its failure to prosecute.[17]
On February 11, 1998, the
Court required the Office of the Court Administrator to submit its evaluation,
report and recommendation with respect to the case against Judge Monserate.[18]
On February 17, 1998,
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez[19] again submitted a report reiterating his
recommendation of November 18, 1996.[20]
On March 29, 2000, the
Court required the parties to manifest if they were willing to submit the case
for resolution based on the pleadings already filed.[21]
On April 14, 2000, Judge
Monserate manifested that he was willing to submit the case for resolution on
the basis of the pleadings already filed.[22]
On June 28, 2000, the
Court resolved to consider its resolution of March 29, 2000 as served upon
complainant since it was returned “unserved.”[23]
Now, the merits.
The Court’s Ruling
At the outset, we dismiss
the charges against Judge Monserate for “harassment.” There is no basis for the
charge. Complainant Oporto alleged that
he was harassed by the clerk of court when the clerk referred him to a specific
bonding company when he inquired as to the amount of his bail. It was the clerk of court who referred him
to the bonding company, not Judge Monserate.
Complainant Oporto
charged Judge Monserate with “gross ignorance of the law” for issuing a warrant
of arrest against him despite the fact that, First, the criminal
complaint against him was not under oath, and Second, the affidavits and
sworn statements of the prosecution witnesses were likewise not under oath and
certified.
We agree with the Court
Administrator that disciplinary action against Judge Monserate on this ground
is warranted. We quote pertinent
portions of the report:[24]
"…It has been held, however, that if the complaint is not sworn to, the defect is merely one of form which cannot invalidate the judgment rendered thereon (U.S. vs. Bibal, 4 Phil. 369). However, respondent should have exercised diligent effort to read the complaint so that this minor problem should have been remedied immediately by merely calling the complainant and swearing said complaint to him.
“Moreover, had he endeavored to exert simple effort to read the complaint and made research on the latest jurisprudence and laws, he would not have gone through conducting a preliminary investigation on the case for the same falls exclusively within his court’s jurisdiction under RA 7691 or the Expanded Jurisdiction of the MTCC’s and MCTC’s.
xxx
“Even granting for the sake of argument that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court as a case for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial document as respondent alleged when the case was first returned by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, he should have made the necessary corrections as to form to reflect the proper offense thus violated, to avoid any guesswork and to apprise the accused of the law he violated.”
Rule 110, Section 3 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure defines a complaint as, “a sworn
written statement charging a person with an offense subscribed
by the offended party, any peace officer or other public officer charged with
the enforcement of the law violated.” Rule 112, Section 3 (a) likewise requires
that for purposes of preliminary investigation, the complaint and its
accompanying affidavits and supporting documents be “sworn to
before any fiscal, state prosecutor or
government official authorized to administer oath, or in their absence or
unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he personally
examined the affiants and
that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed
and understood their affidavits (emphasis ours).” The requirement is
mandatory. Judge Monserate’s oversight
is deplorable.
We likewise deplore Judge
Monserate’s referral of the case to the Provincial Prosecutor on the mistaken
opinion that the crime charged fell within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court. We cite the report of the
Provincial Prosecutor, to wit:
“In passing, while the Honorable Court believed that the crime
committed was Estafa Through Falsification of Commercial Document, however, it
did not say so in its Resolution relying that this Office will review the case
anyway. Such action bespeaks of its
indecisiveness prejudicial to the “right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him.” (People v. Sarte, 130 SCRA
401). It must be remembered that when a
judge conducts preliminary investigation he becomes an extension of the
Provincial Prosecutor, thus he should make sure of the crime charged to avoid
any guessing game.”[25]
Had Judge Monserate
endeavored to exert a little more effort to read the criminal complaint,
he would not have conducted a
preliminary investigation since the charge falls squarely within the
jurisdiction of his court.[26] The allegations in the criminal complaint
state that accused Oporto and his co-accused stole the blank check. There was no deceit employed by them to
induce Lourdes Senar to part with her check.
Clearly, the crime committed was not estafa.
Competence is a mark of a
good judge. When a judge displays an
utter lack of familiarity with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, he erodes the
public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, Judge Monserate
owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law.[27] As a judge, Judge Monserate is “expected to
keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence.”[28] Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a
sign of incompetence. Basic rules must
be at the palm of his hand. A judge
must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural
rules.[29]
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Eddie P. Monserate
guilty of gross ignorance of the law and resolve to IMPOSE upon him a FINE in
the amount of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), with warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman) Puno, Kapunan, and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Filed
by Jovenal Oporto, Jr. with the Office
of the Executive Judge (Judge
David C. Naval), Regional Trial Court, Naga City on July 10, 1996 (Memorandum
for Hon. Andres R. Narvasa, Chief
Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Rollo, pp. 1-6, at p.
1.
[2] Falsification
by private individuals and use of falsified documents.
[3] Falsification
by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister.
[4] The
complaint read thus: “That on or about 9:00 o’clock in the morning of October
19, 1995, in the office of the complaining witness, at San Isidro, Magarao, Camarines
Sur and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, said accused Sonny Rada y Atun alias “ALLAN”, did then
and there, willfully and feloniously took the blank check belonging to the
checking account of the complaining witness, with the Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation, Naga Branch under Serial No. 055135, without the knowledge and
consent of the complaining witness in the same check, attempted to encash the
amount of P118,000.00 reflected in the check, with intent to cause damage in the complaining witness and the said
bank.”
[5] Complaint,
Annex “A”, for Violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code, Rollo,
p. 8.
[6] Memorandum
for Hon. Andres R. Narvasa, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines
dated February 17, 1998, Rollo, pp. 51-58 at p. 51.
[7] Complaint,
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 9.
[8] Complaint,
Annex “K”, Rollo, pp. 20-22 at p. 22.
[9] Through
4th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Novelita Villegas-Llagono.
[10] Compalint,
Annex “L”, Rollo, pp. 23-25 at pp. 24-25.
[11] Complaint,
Rollo, pp. 3-7 at p. 3.
[12] Rollo,
p. 26.
[13] Rollo,
p. 2.
[14] Rollo,
p. 1.
[15] Memorandum
for Hon. Andres R. Narvasa, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines
dated November 18, 1996, Rollo, pp. 1-6, at p. 6.
[16] Rollo,
p. 40.
[17] Memorandum
for Hon. Andres R. Narvasa, Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of the Philippines dated February 17, 1998, Rollo,
pp. 51-58, at pp. 55-56 (quoting the
report of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Naga, in full).
[18] Rollo,
p. 60.
[19] Approval
recommended by then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo.
[20] Memorandum
for Hon. Andres R. Narvasa, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines
dated February 17, 1998, Rollo, pp. 51-58 at p. 58.
[21] Rollo,
p. 62.
[22] Rollo,
p. 64.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Memorandum
for Hon. Andres R. Narvasa, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines
dated February 17, 1998, Rollo, pp. 51-58, at pp. 56-57.
[25] Complaint,
Annex “L”, Order of the Provincial Prosecutor, Rollo, pp. 23-25, at p.
24.
[26] R.
A. 7691, Expanded Jurisdiction of the MTCs and McTCs.
[27] Northcastle
Properties and Estate Corporation v. Acting Presiding Judge Estrellita
M. Paas, MeTC, Branch 45, Pasay City, 317 SCRA 148, at pp. 149, 153-154 (1999).
[28] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, A. M. No.
RTJ-99-1432, June 21, 2000.
[29] Hermogenes
T. Gozun v. Hon. Daniel B. Liangco, A. M. No. MTJ-97-1136, August 30,
2000.