G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-08-1715. March 19, 2009.
RODOLFO R. MAGO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE AUREA G. PEÑALOSA-FERMO, MTC, LABO, CAMARINES NORTE, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rodolfo R. Mago filed a criminal complaint for grave coercion against Sheriff Alex Rodolfo Angeles before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Labo, Camarines Norte, docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-7800. Sheriff Angeles filed a counter-charge for grave threats against complainant and his sons, docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-7811. Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Aurea G. Peñalosa-Fermo, alleging gross ignorance of the law and bias. The allegations included that during the preliminary investigation for the grave threats case, the court stenographer examined complainant and his witnesses using a prepared set of questions, with the respondent judge not present. Complainant also alleged he was arrested immediately after the preliminary investigation and imprisoned for three days. Respondent judge admitted that she prepared written questions based on the affidavits and allowed the stenographer to propound them to the witnesses for convenience and due to cramped office space, claiming she briefed the witnesses first. She denied that the arrest occurred within the court premises immediately after the preliminary examination, presenting evidence that the warrant was issued and served on subsequent days.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Aurea G. Peñalosa-Fermo is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure for delegating the examination of witnesses during a preliminary investigation to a court stenographer.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that prior to the 2005 amendment removing the power from first-level courts, judges of municipal trial courts were empowered to conduct preliminary investigations, which involved the exercise of discretion in determining probable cause. This discretionary power could not be delegated. The Rules required a personal examination of the complainant and witnesses. By delegating the examination to the stenographer and allowing witnesses to read and write answers to prepared questions, respondent betrayed a lack of knowledge of basic procedure, eroding public confidence in the judiciary. The act constitutes a serious charge under the Rules of Court. The Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000) and warned that a commission of another infraction tantamount to the same charge would be dealt with more severely. The Court noted that the issue of bias was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.