Case No.

713

MAGO v. PENALOSA-FERMO
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1715
March 19, 2009

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner Rodolfo Mago filed before the MTC of Labo, Camarines Norte a complaint for grave coercion
against Rodolfo Angeles, Sheriff of the DAR Adjudication Board. On the other hand, the sheriff filed a
counterclaim against herein petitioner and his sons for grave threats. However, as claimed by petitioner,
instead of holding the accused sheriff for preliminary investigation, the former received a complaint for
the charges of grave threats. He alleged that the complaint was purely fabricated. Further, the affidavits of
the case against petitioner Mago cannot be found in the records of the MTC. Upon receiving a subpoena
to attend the preliminary investigation for the case against him, petitioner complied and attended, even
without assistance of a counsel.

During the preliminary investigation, they were examined through a prepared set of questions handed to
them by the stenographer. There was no judge present. Also, after the preliminary investigation, petitioner
was immediately arrested and imprisoned for three (3) days. He was released upon posting bail of
P12,000.

On the other hand, respondent Judge admitted that it was the court stenographer who examined the
petitioner through a prepared set of questions during the preliminary investigation. She argues that the
procedure was done to make it easier for the stenographer to print the transcript of the proceedings.
She further argues that the stenographers take over since the sheets were already prepared for them
beforehand and that they are able to type directly. Contrary to the account of petitioner, respondent judge
denies the claim that the petitioner was arrested and was detained. She alleges that, upon finding probable
cause, she immediately issued warrants of arrest against petitioners.

In a report by the Office of the Court Administrator, it held that respondent Judge is liable for her
unfamiliarity with the basic rules on preliminary investigation. There was irregularity during the
preliminary investigation when the respondent judge allowed the stenographers to handle the latter part of
the proceedings. The OCA states that the power of conducting preliminary investigations is vested solely
on the judge and not the stenographer or anybody else. The OCA finds the petitioner guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and imposes a penalty of P20,000.

ISSUE

Whether or not the preliminary investigation done by the judge through the stenographer was valid and
in accordance with the Consitution

HELD/RATIO

No.
The Court holds that, [a]n officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another.
Therefore, as a judge vested with the power to personally examine the witness, as mandated by the
Constitution under Section 2, Article III, she cannot delegate her duty to the stenographer. The Court
ruled that her lack of knowledge of procedure, contributes to the erosion of public confidence in the
judicial system.

Prepared by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador