1.

SESBRENO v AGLUGUB
FACTS:
This case involves a complaint filed by Sesbreo(Complainant) against MTC Judge
Aglugub(Respondent) for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Neglect of Duty and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service relative to a criminal case (entitled
People v. Enrique Marcelino, et al.
). In the said criminal case, Complainant filed three (3) separate complaints against
Marcelino, Nuez, Tabazon, and Carunungan who are all from the Traffic
Management Unit of San Pedro, Laguna. The criminal complaint was for Falsification,
Grave Threats and Usurpation of Authority. The three (3) cases were assigned to
respondent judges branch and subsequently consolidated for disposition. In a
Consolidated Resolution, only the charge of Usurpation was set for arraignment, the
rest of the charges having beendismissed. Thereafter, Complainant made a
manifestation that the complaint also charged the defendants with violation of RA
No. 10 accompanied by a prayer for the issuance of warrants of arrests againstthe
defendants. Respondent judge found no probablecause and dismissed the charge
for violation of R.A. 10.She also denied complainants prayer for the issuanceof
warrants of arrest against the accused and orderedthe records forwarded to the
Provincial ProsecutorsOffice (PPO) for review. The PPO affirmed respondentsorder
and remanded the case to the court for furtherproceedings on the sole charge of
Usurpation of Authority. During the hearing of the case on February14, 2004,
Tabazon, Carunungan and Nuez did notappear. Atty. Sesbreo, however, did not
move for theissuance of warrants of arrest against them. Neitherdid he object to the
cancellation of the scheduledhearing
ISSUES:
1.Did Respondent err in not conducting a preliminary investigation for the charge of
Usurpation of Authority?2.Did Respondent err in not issuing warrants of arrest for
failure of the accused to appear during trial?
3.
Did Respondent err in issuing her Order dismissing the complaint for violation of
R.A.10?
4.Did Respondent err in transmitting the records of the case to the PPO instead of
the Office of the Ombudsman?
HELD:
1.

No. A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or

information for an offense where the penalty prescribed bylaw is at least four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. Thus, a
preliminary investigation is notrequired nor was one conducted for the chargeof
violation of Art. 177 of the Revised PenalCode which is punishable by prision
correccional in its minimum and mediumperiods or from six (6) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
2. No. There is nothing in the Rules of Criminal Procedure which requires a judge to
issue a warrant of arrest for the non-appearance of the accused during the trial.
Hence, its issuance rests on the sound discretion of the presiding judge. More so in
this case, the private prosecutor did not move for the issuance of such warrant.
3. No. Respondent concedes that due , she failed to rule on the charge of violation
of R.A. 10 in her initial Resolution. Nonetheless, she asserts in her
Comment To Dismiss Administrative Complaint
that she conducted a preliminary investigation for the charge of violation of R.A. 10
and dismissed the charge after taking into consideration the affidavits and evidence
presented. Complainant does not dispute the fact that indeed a preliminary
investigation was conducted for this charge. Thus, when respondent judge
dismissed the complaint for violation of R.A. 10, she merely did so to correct an
oversight. It was the dismissal of the charge for violation of R.A. 10 that was
elevated to the PPO for review. It was imprudent, however, for respondent judge to
transmit the entire records of the case to the PPO knowing that the charge for
Usurpation of Authority was included in the records of the case. Respondent judge
should have ensured that at least one complete set of the records remained in her
sala so that the prosecution for Usurpation of Authority would not be held up.
Injudicious though her actuation was, Respondent judge was not motivated by an
evil intent to delay the case.
4. No. This issue is answered by Administrative Order No. 8 entitled
Clarifying and Modifying Certain Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman,
which provides "that all prosecutors are now deputized Ombudsman prosecutors."
Moreover, "[R]esolutions in Ombudsman cases against public officers and
employees prepared by a deputized assistant prosecutor shall be submitted to the
Provincial or City Prosecutor concerned who shall, in turn, forward the same to the
Deputy Ombudsman of the area with his recommendation for the approval or
disapproval thereof. Thus, Respondent did not err and was, in fact, merely acting in
accordance with law when she forwarded the case for violation of R.A. 10 to the
PPO. The fact that the PPO remanded the case to the court for further proceedings
instead of forwarding the same to the Deputy Ombudsman as required by

Administrative Order No. 8 is quite another matter. In any event, respondent judge
should have taken the necessary steps to remedy the lapse in order to preclude
delay in the disposition of the case. Complaint dismissed for lack of merit.
Respondent was nonetheless admonished to be more circumspect in the
performance of her duties in the future.