Case Digest: RODOLFO R. MAGO v. JUDGE AUREA G. PEÑALOSA-FERMO

RODOLFO R. MAGO v. JUDGE AUREA G. PEÑALOSA-FERMO

582 SCRA 1 (2009), SECOND DIVISION

Rodolfo R. Mago (Mago) alleged that Judge Aurea G. Peñalosa-Fermo, committed gross ignorance of the law and bias in the disposition of his complaint and of the counter-charge against him. Mago claims that when he filed a complaint for Grave Coercion against one Alex Roberto Angeles, he received a subpoena to attend the preliminary investigation of said criminal case. In compliance, he and his witnesses attended and they were examined through a prepared set of questions handed to them by the stenographer. Judge Peñalosa-Fermo was not present then.

Judge Peñalosa-Fermo admitted that the court stenographer has a prepared sheet of questions during the preliminary examination but she claimed that this is for the convenience of the court stenographer and the witnesses.

The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Peñalosa-Fermo guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Judge Peñalosa-Fermo committed gross ignorance of the law or procedure

HELD:

Prior to the amendment on October 3, 2005 of Rules 112 and 114 of the Rules of Court via A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts, judges of municipal trial courts were empowered to conduct preliminary investigations in which they exercised discretion in determining whether there was probable cause to hale the respondent into court. Such being the case, they could not delegate the discretion to another.

An officer to whom discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another. Then, as now, a personal examination of the complainant in a criminal case and his witness/es was required. Thus, under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court before its amendment, the “investigating fiscal” was required to “certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses . . . “

By the Judge Peñalosa-Fermo ‘s delegation of the examination of the sheriff-complainant in the grave threats case to the stenographer, and worse, by allowing the witnesses to “read/study the written questions” to be propounded to them and to “write their answers thereto” upon the judge‘s justification that the scheme was for the convenience of the stenographers, Judge Peñalosa-Fermo betrayed her lackof knowledge of procedure, thereby contributing to the erosion of public confidence in the judicial system.