CRIMPRO RULE 110, SEC 3

JOVENAL OPORTO, JR. V JUDGE falsification only. He remanded the case to the court
of origin for further proceedings.
EDDIE MONSERATE
AM No. MTJ-96-1109 | 16 April 2001| PARDO, J. ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST MONSERATE
COMPLAINT DEFINED July 9 1996 Oporto filed with the Executive Judge,
xxx RTC, Naga City an administrative complaint charging
Judge Monserate with ignorance of the law,
FACTS harassment and/or grave abuse of discretion.
NATURE OF THE CASE • Harassment Allegation: Oporto alleged that
Case is an administrative complaint charging Judge he was harassed by the clerk of court when
Monserate, Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao- the clerk referred him to a specific bonding
Canaman, CamSure with ignorance of the law, company when he inquired as to the amount
harassment and grave abuse of discretion. of his bail.
• Ignorance of the Law Allegation: For issuing
THE INITIAL CRIMINAL CASE a warrant of arrest against him despite the
October 31 1995, Lourdes Senar filed a complaint fact that the criminal complaint against him
against Sonny Rada and Jovenal Oporto Jr. for was not under oath and; the affidavits and
violation of Article 172 (falsification by private sworn statements of the prosecution
individuals and use of falsified documents) in relation witnesses were likewise not under oath and
to Article 173 (falsification by public officer, certified.
employee, or notary or ecclesiastical minister) of the
RPC. The complaint was filed with the Municipal CASE PROGRESS
Circuit Trial Court, Magarao-Canaman, CamSur and Executive Judge Naval found the complaint to be
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2811. The sufficient in form and substance and required
Complaint was however, not under oath. Monserate to file a response. On August 16 1996,
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo Suarez wrote
The complaint read thus: That on or about 9:00 oclock in the Judge Naval requesting him to forward to the Office of
morning of October 19, 1995, in the office of the complaining the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, the original
witness, at San Isidro, Magarao, Camarines Sur and within
of the admin complaint considering that the charges
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused Sonny
Rada y Atun alias ALLAN, did then and there, willfully and against Judge Monserate appear to be less serious to
feloniously took the blank check belonging to the checking serious in nature. On November 18, 1996, DCA Suarez
account of the complaining witness, with the Rizal recommended that Judge Monserate be given a severe
Commercial Banking Corporation, Naga Branch under Serial reprimand for his failure to keep abreast with the
No. 055135, without the knowledge and consent of the latest laws, ruling and jurisprudence affecting his
complaining witness in the same check, attempted to encash jurisdiction and for his failure to be more circumspect
the amount of P118,000.00 reflected in the check, with intent of his duty as a judicial officer.
to cause damage in the complaining witness and the said
bank.
ISSUE
W/N a complaint which is not sworn to and of
STEPS TAKEN BY THE COURT
which judgment has been rendered thereon can
• November 10 1995, Judge Monserate issued a
be a ground for the ignorance of the law and abuse
warrant for the arrest of Oporto and Rada, and fixed
of discretion against a Judge
bail at 14,000 each.
• January 26 1996, on the notion that the case fell
HELD
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, Judge Monserate
WHILE A COMPLAINT NOT SWORN INTO IS A
conducted a preliminary investigation and declared
MERE DEFECT IN FORM, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE
that there was probable cause. He then ordered the
SEEN THE MINOR PROBLEM TO REMEDY IT
records of the case to be forwarded to the
It has been held that if the complaint is not sworn to,
Provincial Prosecutor Office, CamSur for
the defect is merely one of form which cannot
appropriate action.
invalidate the judgment rendered thereon (U.S. vs.
• February 28 1996, Provincial Prosecutor of CamSur
Bibal, 4 Phil. 369). However, Judge Monserate should
found that the crime committed was not estafa but
have exercised diligent effort to read the complaint so
falsification, the penalty for which was prision
that this minor problem should have been remedied
correccional in its med and max periods, and a fine
immediately by merely calling the complainant and
of not more than 5,000 pesos; and thus fell within
swearing said complaint to him.
the expanded jurisdiction of the MTC and MCTC.
According to the Provincial Prosecutor, there was
JUDGE MONSERATE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE
no deceit, thus the crime was not estafa through
EXPANDED JURISDICTION OF HIS COURTS
falsification of commercial documents but for
Moreover, had he exerted simple effort to read the
complaint and made research on the latest
© CHAN GOMASCO
CRIMPRO RULE 110, SEC 3

jurisprudence and laws, he would not have gone

through conducting a preliminary investigation on the
case for it falls exclusively within his courts
jurisdiction under RA 7691 or the Expanded
Jurisdiction of the MTCCs and MCTCs.

Even granting for the sake of argument that the case

falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
as a case for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial
document as respondent alleged when the case was
first returned by the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, he should have made the necessary
corrections as to form to reflect the proper
offense thus violated, to avoid any guesswork and
to apprise the accused of the law he violated.

Rule 110, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure defines a complaint as, a sworn written
statement charging a person with an offense
subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer
or other public officer charged with the enforcement
of the law violated. Rule 112, Section 3 (a) likewise
requires that for purposes of preliminary
investigation, the complaint and its accompanying
affidavits and supporting documents be sworn to
before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government
official authorized to administer oath, or in their
absence or unavailability, a notary public, who must
certify that he personally examined the affiants and
that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and
understood their affidavits (emphasis ours). The
requirement is mandatory. Judge Monserates
oversight is inexcusable.

Had Judge Monserate endeavored to exert a little

more effort to read the criminal complaint, he would
not have conducted a preliminary investigation since
the charge falls squarely within the jurisdiction of his
court. The allegations in the criminal complaint state
that accused Oporto and his co-accused stole the
blank check. There was no deceit employed by them
to induce Lourdes Senar to part with her check.
Clearly, the crime committed was not estafa.

Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge

displays an utter lack of familiarity with the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, he erodes the publics confidence
in the competence of our courts. Such is gross
ignorance of the law. Having accepted the exalted
position of a judge, Judge Monserate owes the public
and the court the duty to be proficient in the law. As a
judge, Judge Monserate is expected to keep abreast of
laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Unfamiliarity with
the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence. Basic
rules must be at the palm of his hand. A judge must be
acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as
with procedural rules.

© CHAN GOMASCO