View full case

LYDELLE L. CONQUILLA v. JUDGE LAURO G. BERNARDO

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Lydelle Conquilla against Judge Lauro Bernardo, the Presiding Judge of the MTC of Bocaue, Bulacan. Conquilla alleges that respondent judge committed usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law.

Conquilla claims that on July 4, 2008, a criminal complaint for direct assault was filed against her before the MTC of Bocaue, Bulacan. On July 8, 2008, respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to hold Conquilla for trial. Respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest on the same day, with bail fixed at P12,000. However, on July 10, 2008, respondent judge reduced the bail to P6,000 upon Conquilla's motion and she posted cash bail for her provisional liberty.

Conquilla argues that under A.M. No. 05-08-6-SC, first level court judges are no longer allowed to conduct preliminary investigations, and respondent judge committed an illegal act by conducting the investigation and issuing the warrant of arrest. Conquilla also alleges that respondent judge's wife offered to help reduce the bail and dismiss the case in exchange for settling her debts and loaning her money.

Respondent judge, on the other hand, claims that he issued the warrant of arrest in good faith, believing there was probable cause and it was necessary to prevent a frustration of justice. He argues that even if the power to determine probable cause was revoked by the amendment, technical rules can be relaxed if their implementation will result in injustice. Respondent judge denies knowledge of the alleged conversation and transaction between Conquilla and his wife.

The OCA found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for his violation of the provisions of the Resolution in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC. The OCA recommended that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent judge be fined P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law.

The Court found that respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation, not just a preliminary examination, as evident in his Order dated July 8, 2008. This conduct directly contravened A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which removed the authority of first level court judges to conduct preliminary investigations. Under the said resolution, only certain officers are authorized to conduct preliminary investigations.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent judge committed usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law.

  2. Whether or not the respondent judge's conduct of preliminary investigation is in violation of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.

RULING:

  1. The charge of usurpation of authority is without merit. The court agrees with the respondent judge that the power to determine the amount of bail is vested in the judge. However, the charge of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law is well-founded. The respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation even though A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC removed the conduct of investigation from the scope of authority of first level court judges.

  2. The conduct of preliminary investigation by the respondent judge is indeed in violation of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC. This amendment removed the authority of first level court judges to conduct preliminary investigations. Therefore, the respondent judge's action of conducting a preliminary investigation and issuing a warrant of arrest was contrary to the rules.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The power to determine the amount of bail is vested in the judge.

  • A judge should exercise prudence and understanding in interpreting and applying the pertinent provisions of the law and rules.

  • The conduct of preliminary investigation is not within the authority of first level court judges, as specified in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.