In Gutierrez v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court reiterated the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules in the issuance of warrants of arrest. The Court found Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing warrants of arrest without conducting a preliminary investigation and for setting cases for arraignment before informations were filed. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of individuals by ensuring that judicial processes are conducted fairly and deliberately, with due regard for due process.

When Rescue Becomes Repression: Did a Judge Jump the Gun on Due Process?

This case arose from a complaint filed by P/Supt. Alejandro Gutierrez and other officers of the Criminal Investigation and Detective Division (CIDD) against Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. The CIDD officers alleged that Judge Hernandez had demonstrated gross ignorance of the law and committed acts of impropriety in handling criminal cases filed against them. These cases stemmed from a rescue operation conducted by the CIDD, where they rescued five young girls from a KTV bar. Subsequently, counter-charges of grave coercion and qualified trespass to dwelling were filed against the CIDD officers, Gus Abelgas, and Ernesto Cruz, before Judge Hernandez’s court. The core issue was whether Judge Hernandez violated the complainants’ rights to due process by issuing warrants of arrest without proper preliminary investigation and setting the cases for arraignment without the requisite informations.

The complainants argued that Judge Hernandez issued warrants of arrest with inordinate haste, forgoing the mandatory preliminary examination and personal determination of probable cause, thereby violating their constitutional rights to due process. They further alleged that Judge Hernandez set the criminal cases for arraignment without the necessary informations being filed in court. Central to the complaint was the claim that Judge Hernandez had acted improperly by conferring with the accused in the original case and participating in activities that compromised his impartiality. In response, Judge Hernandez denied the accusations, asserting that his actions were within his judicial function and that he had conducted a preliminary investigation before issuing the warrants of arrest. He also refuted the allegations of impropriety, stating that he had no personal interest in the cases and denying any involvement in the alleged drinking spree with GROs.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the mandatory nature of preliminary investigations as enshrined in the Rules of Court. Citing Section 1, Rule 112, the Court highlighted that a preliminary investigation is required in cases cognizable by the municipal trial courts for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months, and one day. The Court also referred to Section 3 of Rule 112, which outlines the procedure to be followed in conducting a preliminary investigation, emphasizing that the accused must be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and adduce evidence before a warrant of arrest is issued. In this case, the Court found that the complainants were not issued any subpoena to file their counter-affidavits before Judge Hernandez issued the warrants of arrest, which constituted a clear violation of their right to due process.

The Court further dissected Section 6, par. (b) of Rule 112, which specifies the conditions that must concur for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by a municipal judge during a preliminary investigation. The conditions are that the investigating judge must have: examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses, be satisfied that probable cause exists, and determine that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody to prevent the frustration of justice. The court held that the issuance of warrants of arrest in this case was clearly irregular, lacking not only a proper preliminary investigation but also any finding of a need to place the complainants under immediate custody. As the Supreme Court stated in Oktubre v. Judge Velasco:

Even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory for him to issue a warrant of arrest. He must further determine the necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

The Court emphasized that the procedure described in Section 6(b) of Rule 112 is mandatory and that failure to follow it amounts to a denial of due process. The Supreme Court, quoting the case of Sps. Arcilla v. Judge Palaypayan and Clerk of Court Bajo, further elucidated the importance of following proper procedure:

While respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation on the same day the complaint for estafa was filed, however, he did not notify the accused to give him an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and evidence in his defense. Worst, on the same day, respondent judge issued the warrant of arrest. Clearly, his actuations manifest his ignorance of procedural rules and a reckless disregard of the accused’s basic right to due process.

Adding to the gravity of the situation, Judge Hernandez set the criminal cases for arraignment and hearing despite the absence of a preliminary investigation and the lack of informations filed before his court. This action was deemed a gross violation of the complainants’ right to be informed of the accusations against them and to have a copy of the information before arraignment. The court emphasized that when the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and apply it, and anything less constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As stated in Creer v. Fabillar, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1218, August 14, 2000, 337 SCRA 632:

When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it. Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law.

Given the circumstances, the Supreme Court found Judge Hernandez guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure. However, considering that this was his first administrative case after over a decade of judicial service and that he had already compulsorily retired, the Court imposed a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits. This penalty served as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules and protecting the constitutional rights of individuals in the judicial process.

This case underscores the importance of due process and the necessity of conducting thorough preliminary investigations before issuing warrants of arrest. It serves as a reminder to judges that they must act deliberately and fairly, ensuring that individuals are afforded their constitutional rights. The decision emphasizes that even with years of experience, judges must remain vigilant in upholding the law and protecting the rights of those who come before their courts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Hernandez violated the complainants’ rights to due process by issuing warrants of arrest without a proper preliminary investigation and setting cases for arraignment without the required informations.
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 that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. It is a crucial step in protecting individuals from baseless prosecutions.
What does due process mean in this context?	Due process refers to the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. In this context, it includes the right to be informed of the charges, the right to present a defense, and the right to a fair and impartial hearing.
What did the Court find regarding the judge’s actions?	The Court found Judge Hernandez guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure for issuing warrants of arrest without conducting a preliminary investigation and for setting cases for arraignment before informations were filed.
What penalty was imposed on the judge?	Considering this was his first administrative case and he had retired, the Court imposed a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
What rule did the judge violate?	The judge violated Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the requirements for conducting a preliminary investigation and issuing warrants of arrest.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that judicial processes are conducted fairly and deliberately. It emphasizes the importance of due process and adherence to procedural rules.
Why is a preliminary investigation important before issuing a warrant of arrest?	A preliminary investigation ensures that there is a probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is likely responsible. It prevents arbitrary arrests and protects individual liberties.

The Gutierrez v. Hernandez case serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of due process and ensuring fair legal proceedings. It emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly in the issuance of warrants of arrest, to protect individual rights and prevent abuses of power.

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: P/SUPT. ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, PCI ANTONIO RICAFORT, SPO4 RICARDO G. ONG, AND SPO1 ARNULFO MEDENILLA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE GODOFREDO G. HERNANDEZ, SR., RESPONDENT., A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, June 08, 2007