AM MTJ 00 1287; (February, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1287. February 17, 2003. ROGELIO G. CAPULONG, petitioner, vs. JUDGE VINCI G. GOZUM, MTC, Floridablanca, Pampanga, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rogelio G. Capulong charged Judge Vinci G. Gozum with Grave Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law. The charge stemmed from the respondent judge’s provisional dismissal of two criminal cases (Qualified Theft and Frustrated Murder) filed by the complainant, allegedly “for failure on the part of the prosecution to conduct the preliminary investigation.” The complainant alleged that his counsel’s repeated failure to appear prompted the dismissals. The complaints were initially filed with the Executive Judge of the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga, and later referred to the Supreme Court.
The Executive Judge, after investigation, found that respondent Judge committed an error of judgment but not with deliberate intent, recommending simple admonition. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, found the error constitutive of gross ignorance of the law, recommending a fine of ₱10,000.00. A separate allegation by the complainant that the judge failed to act on a motion to revive the cases was negated by evidence showing the motion was denied by a pairing judge based on prosecutorial resolutions.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Vinci G. Gozum is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for provisionally dismissing criminal cases due to the non-participation of the complainant’s private counsel in the preliminary investigation.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge conducting a preliminary investigation acts as an investigating officer, not as a presiding judge in a trial. Under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the investigating officer has full control of the proceedings. The presence or participation of the private complainant’s counsel is not required; the investigating judge determines probable cause based on the evidence submitted by the parties.
By dismissing the cases due to the complainant’s counsel’s absence, respondent Judge demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of this elementary procedural rule. The law mandates judges to maintain professional competence, and ignorance of basic rules, especially for a judge with sixteen years of service, is inexcusable. The Court upheld the OCA’s finding that such unfamiliarity with a simple and clear rule constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Considering the incident occurred before the effectivity of a stricter rule amendment, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) with a stern warning.