The Supreme Court ruled in this case that judges cannot delegate their duty to conduct preliminary investigations to court stenographers. This decision emphasizes the importance of a judge’s personal involvement in determining probable cause and safeguards against potential abuses of power. It reaffirms the principle that discretionary functions entrusted to a specific officer cannot be delegated, as the role requires the officer’s judgment and competence.

When Convenience Undermines Justice: The Stenographer’s Investigation

The case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Rodolfo Mago against Judge Aurea G. Peñalosa-Fermo of the Municipal Trial Court of Labo, Camarines Norte. Mago alleged that Judge Peñalosa-Fermo demonstrated gross ignorance of the law and bias in handling a grave coercion complaint he filed, as well as a counter-charge for grave threats against him. The crux of the complaint centered on the judge’s practice of allowing the court stenographer to conduct a significant portion of the preliminary investigation, including the examination of witnesses.

Judge Peñalosa-Fermo admitted that the stenographer used a prepared set of questions during the preliminary investigation. She argued that this was done for the convenience of the stenographers and to expedite the proceedings. However, the Supreme Court found this practice unacceptable. Building on this principle, the court emphasized that judges, when empowered to conduct preliminary investigations, must personally exercise their discretion and cannot delegate this power to others. To clarify, such delegation undermines the judicial process and erodes public trust.

The Court’s decision hinged on the principle that an officer entrusted with discretion cannot delegate it to another. This principle recognizes that the officer was chosen for their specific competence and judgment. It stated that judges cannot delegate duties requiring such personal assessment unless explicitly authorized to do so. This restriction safeguards the integrity of the preliminary investigation process, ensuring that the determination of probable cause rests with the judicial officer, who is expected to act impartially and judiciously. By failing to conduct a personal examination of the complainant and witnesses, respondent showed a lack of familiarity with proper procedure.

An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another.

The Supreme Court emphasized that prior to the 2005 amendment of the Rules of Court, judges of municipal trial courts were indeed empowered to conduct preliminary investigations. However, this empowerment did not grant them the authority to delegate the core aspects of this function. Under the unamended Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court, the investigating fiscal was required to certify under oath that he or an authorized officer had personally examined the complainant and witnesses. The subsequent delegation of the examination by respondent to the stenographer was a gross error.

Therefore, the Supreme Court found Judge Peñalosa-Fermo guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure, a serious charge under the Rules of Court. This offense carries significant penalties, including dismissal, suspension, or a substantial fine. The Court, considering this to be her first offense, imposed a fine of P20,000.00 on Judge Peñalosa-Fermo. Also, the court cautioned that future infractions of a similar nature would be dealt with more severely, reinforcing the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a judge could delegate the responsibility of conducting a preliminary investigation, specifically the examination of witnesses, to a court stenographer.
What is a preliminary investigation?	A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Why is it important for a judge to personally conduct preliminary investigations?	Personal conduct ensures impartiality, allows for direct assessment of witness credibility, and upholds the integrity of the judicial process by preventing delegation of discretionary powers.
What was the judge’s defense in this case?	The judge argued that the delegation to the stenographer was for convenience and to expedite proceedings, claiming it made the process easier for both the stenographers and the witnesses.
What did the Supreme Court rule about the judge’s defense?	The Supreme Court rejected the judge’s defense, stating that convenience does not justify the delegation of discretionary judicial functions, especially those concerning preliminary investigations.
What is “Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure?”	Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure is when a judge exhibits lack of knowledge of well-known legal principles. This results in the public losing their faith in the judicial system.
What was the penalty imposed on the judge?	The judge was fined P20,000.00 and warned that any similar infractions in the future would result in more severe penalties.
Has this rule on preliminary investigations changed?	Yes, in 2005, the Rules of Court were amended to remove the power of judges of first-level courts to conduct preliminary investigations. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in the legal system.

This case underscores the importance of judges personally fulfilling their duties in preliminary investigations. By attempting to expedite the process through delegation, the judge compromised the integrity of the proceedings. Strict compliance with procedural rules is a cornerstone of the legal system. When procedures are followed correctly, public confidence and judicial accountability will also grow.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rodolfo R. Mago vs. Judge Aurea G. Peñalosa-Fermo, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1715, March 19, 2009