In Zenaida J. Castro v. Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome, the Supreme Court found Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome guilty of undue delay in transmitting the records of a preliminary investigation. This case underscores the critical duty of judges to promptly forward case records to the prosecutor’s office, ensuring the swift administration of justice. The Court emphasized that failure to comply with this mandate can result in administrative sanctions, highlighting the importance of judicial accountability and adherence to procedural rules.

Justice Delayed: When a Judge’s Delay Undermines Due Process

This administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Zenaida Castro against Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The complaint alleged grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust order, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. These charges stemmed from Judge Bartolome’s handling of criminal cases against Castro’s son, specifically concerning rape and violation of Republic Act No. 7610. The central issue revolved around the judge’s failure to promptly transmit the records of the preliminary investigation to the provincial prosecutor’s office, as required by law.

The complainant argued that Judge Bartolome issued a warrant of arrest against her son without conducting adequate preliminary examination, thereby violating his due process rights. She further claimed that the transcript of records submitted to the prosecutor was falsified to conceal the lack of searching questions and answers during the preliminary examination. Judge Bartolome countered these claims, stating that he did personally examine the private complainant and conduct searching questions. He admitted to a delay in transmitting the records but attributed it to the Clerk of Court and argued that the transcript of stenographic notes remains in the possession of the municipal courts unless required by the investigating fiscal. Ultimately, the Court found these explanations insufficient to excuse the judge’s non-compliance with established procedural rules.

The Court’s decision hinged on Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that an investigating judge must transmit the resolution of the case, along with the entire records, to the provincial or city prosecutor within ten days after the preliminary investigation. The records must include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the transcripts of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.

The rationale behind this requirement, as the Court emphasized by citing Manalastas v. Flores, is that preliminary investigation is an executive function. While municipal judges are sometimes tasked with conducting preliminary investigations due to a shortage of fiscals, this function remains subject to review by the provincial or city prosecutor, and ultimately, the Secretary of Justice. The investigating judge, therefore, has a ministerial duty to transmit the case records promptly. “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 that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.”

Judge Bartolome’s defense—that the delay was the responsibility of the Clerk of Court—was rejected by the Supreme Court, reiterating that the proper and smooth functioning of the court is the presiding judge’s primary responsibility. The Court underscored that judges must embody competence, integrity, and independence, administering justice impartially and without delay. A judge should also be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, noting that “when a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts.” Undue delay in transmitting the records of a case is considered a less serious charge under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The judge was thus held administratively liable.

Given Judge Bartolome’s previous administrative sanctions, the Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00 and sternly warned him against repeating similar acts. The Court had previously sanctioned him for gross ignorance of the law in A.M. No. MTJ-97-1114, and reprimanded him for making untruthful statements in A.M. No. MTJ-03-1482, demonstrating a pattern of disregard for legal procedure and judicial ethics. This case serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding ethical standards and ensuring accountability among its members.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Judge Bartolome was administratively liable for failing to promptly transmit the records of a preliminary investigation to the provincial prosecutor’s office, as required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
What duty does an investigating judge have after a preliminary investigation?	After a preliminary investigation, the investigating judge has a ministerial duty to transmit the resolution of the case, along with the entire records, to the provincial or city prosecutor within ten days.
What should be included in the records transmitted by the judge?	The records must include the warrant of arrest (if applicable), affidavits and other supporting evidence, the undertaking or bail of the accused, transcripts of proceedings, and the order of cancellation of the bail bond (if the resolution is for dismissal).
Why is the timely transmittal of records so important?	Timely transmittal ensures the swift administration of justice and allows the prosecutor’s office to review the case and determine whether there is probable cause to file charges.
What was the penalty imposed on Judge Bartolome?	Judge Bartolome was found guilty of undue delay and was fined P20,000.00. He was also sternly warned against repeating similar acts.
Can a judge delegate the responsibility of transmitting records to court personnel?	No, the Supreme Court held that the judge cannot escape administrative liability by blaming court personnel, as the proper functioning of the court is primarily the judge’s responsibility.
What prior administrative sanctions did Judge Bartolome face?	Judge Bartolome was previously sanctioned for gross ignorance of the law and for making untruthful statements in the course of defending himself against an administrative charge.
Under what rule is undue delay in transmitting records classified?	Undue delay in transmitting records is classified as a less serious charge under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

This case underscores the importance of judges adhering to procedural rules and acting with diligence in carrying out their duties. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a warning to judges that failure to promptly transmit case records can result in disciplinary action, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial system.

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: Zenaida J. Castro v. Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome, A.M. NO. MTJ-05-1589, April 26, 2005