A.M. No. MTJ-02-1441. July 31, 2002. SPOUSES TERRY and MERLYN GERKEN, complainants, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO C. QUINTOS, Acting Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bagac-Morong, Bataan, respondent.
FACTS

Complainants, spouses Terry and Merlyn Gerken, were arrested on August 23, 2000, pursuant to a warrant issued by respondent Judge Antonio C. Quintos in a kidnapping case. The complaint was filed by Yolanda Cutrer, who implicated the Gerkens, her own husband Walter, and another. No bail was recommended. The Gerkens’ counsel filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to Quash the Complaint and Warrant of Arrest and to Annul the Preliminary Investigation on August 25, 2000. Respondent judge did not act on this motion. He instead reiterated his finding of probable cause on September 4, 2000, and forwarded the records to the Provincial Prosecutor, who filed the corresponding information in the Regional Trial Court. The Gerkens alleged they were denied due process, as they were not subpoenaed to submit counter-affidavits. They further claimed the arrest warrant was issued with undue haste despite their being known, permanent residents of Olongapo City, and that they languished in jail with their infant son for months. The criminal case was eventually provisionally dismissed on December 18, 2000.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his actions in conducting the preliminary investigation and issuing the warrant of arrest against the complainants.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for grave misconduct and abuse of authority. The Court, adopting the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, held that respondent judge disregarded the mandatory procedure for preliminary investigation under Rule 112, §3 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. He deprived the complainants of due process by failing to issue a subpoena and grant them the 10-day period to submit their counter-affidavits. Furthermore, the issuance of the warrant of arrest was hasty and constituted an abuse of authority. Under Rule 112, §6(b), a warrant during a preliminary investigation requires not only a finding of probable cause but also a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent frustration of justice. Respondent judge’s examination of the complainant and her witness was perfunctory, asking only basic personal questions without any searching inquiry into the facts of the alleged crime. No evidence was presented to justify the necessity for immediate custody, especially since the accused were known to the private complainant, were permanent residents, and showed no indication of flight. The Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) with a stern warning.