GUTIERREZ V.

HERNANDEZ
June 8, 2007 | Garcia, J. | Administrative Case initially filed with the Office of Court Administrator | Arrests
PETITIONER: P/Supt. Alejandro Gutierrez, PCI Antonio Ricafort, SPO4 Ricardo Ong, SPO1 Arnulfo Medenilla
RESPONDENT: Judge Godofredo Hernandez, Sr.
SUMMARY: Agents from the PNP with the crew of ABS-CBNs Private Eye led by Gus Abelgas acted on a complaint which
led to a rescue operation of 5 girls from a KTV Bar in Mindoro. Criminal charges were thereafter filed. Several weeks after,
complainants (members of the rescue team + TV crew) learned that 4 out of the 5 girls rescued withdrew their complaints against
PO2 Ringor, et.al. and instead filed charges against them before respondent Judge Godofredo Hernandez. It was later discovered
that warrants of arrest were issued against them by the respondent judge just 1 day after the charges were filed. Petitioners filed an
admin case against Hernandez when he set the arraignment for the cases even without information being filed.
DOCTRINE: Rule 112, Sec 6 (b) also permits judges to issue warrants of arrest while the investigation is underway when 3
conditions concur. The judge must: 1. Have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching
questions and answers; 2. Be satisfied that probable cause exists; and 3. That there be a need to place the respondent under custody
in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

FACTS:
1. A rescue operation was conducted by petitioners following
a complain by one Ernesto Cruz which was brought to their
office through Gus Abelgas TV Program, Private Eye.
Complaint of Cruz held that his daughter was allegedly
recruited at a KTV Bar.
2. The team was able to rescue 5 young girls (which includes
Enresto Cruz daughter) from the house of one Salvador
Napolitano who claimed that a certain PO23 Jose Ringor was
responsible for bringing the women to such place.
3. Complaint for violation of RA 9208 was filed before the
City Prosecutor against PO2 Ringor, his recruiter and wife and
a certain Bebang. Corresponding Information was filed.
4. Several weeks later, petitioners were surprised after
discovering that cases for grave coercion and qualified
trespass had been filed against them and the TV Crew before
the sala of respondent judge.
5. Apparently, some of the rescued girls retracted their
complaint and instead filed a case against herein petitioners.
6. Petitioners alleged that PO2 Ringor brought the girls to a
beach resort where he threatened and coerced them into
signing complaint against herein petitioners and that J
Hernandez also went to the beach house and conferred with
PO2 Ringor regarding retraction of complaint.
7. It is also alleged that after such coercion and conference,
SPO2 Ringor and J Hernandez and others had a drinking spree
where J Hernandez was seen being entertained by two GROs
given by one SPO2 Balacana.
8. Because of this, petitioners filed Administrative Complaint
with Office of Court Administrator (OCA) alleging as well
gros negligence on the part of J Hernandez for 1) issuing
warrant of arrests in inordinate haste and without the required
preliminary examination and personal etermination of
probable cause and for 2) setting for arraignment without
Informations having been filed in court.
9. OCA found that respondent judge was guilty of gross
ignorance of procedural rules. But since this is the first
complaint and because Hernandez had compulsorily retired,
OCA only recommended that he be fined.
ISSUE/S:

1. WON Respondent Judge commited grave ignorance of

procedural rules YES
RULING: OCA findings and recommendations upheld.
RATIO:
1. Sec. 3 of Rule 112 requires that in a preliminary
investigation, after complainant and his witnesses present their
affidavits, respondent shall be subpenad and within 10 days
from receipt of subpoena, shall submit his counter-affidavit
and that of his witness.
2. It is apparent that petitioners were never issued subpoenas
and were consequently deprived of their right to file counteraffidavits.
3. Warrants of arrest were issued without complying with the
requisite conditions. Complaints against herein petitioners
were filed on August 23, 2004. Motion for the issuance of
warrant of arrest was filed the next day and respondent Judge
immediately granted such and issued a warrant of arrest that
same day.
4. Indubitably, no preliminary investigation was conducted as
no subpoena was issued to herein complainants
5. Sec. 6, Par (b) of Rule 112 holds that without waiting for
the conclusion of investigation, judge may issue warrant of
arrest if 3 conditions are met (see Doctrine).
6. Issuance was clearly irregular, it did not show any finding
of a need to place complainant under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
7. Even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory
that he issue a warrant of arrest. He must further determine the
necessity of placing respondent under immediate custody.
8. A worse display of gross ignorance was for holding
arraignment knowing fully well that no preliminary
investigation had been conducted and no informations had yet
been filed. It is inexcusable for a Judge of 12 years to make
such mistake.
9. Compassion works in respondents favor, what with the fact
that this is his first administrative case after more than a
decade of judicial service, let alone the circumstance that he
has already compulsorily retired. OCAs recommended penalty
of FINE appears in order.