A.M.No.MTJ121804.July30,2012.

*
(FormerlyA.M.OCAI.P.I.No.092179MTJ)
CITYPROSECUTORARMANDOP.ABANADO,complainantvs.
JUDGE ABRAHAM A. BAYONA, Presiding Judge, Municipal
TrialCourtinCities,Branch7,BacolodCity,respondent.

Criminal Procedure Preliminary Investigation The conduct of a

preliminary investigation is primarily an executive function.The conduct
of a preliminary investigation is primarily an executive function. Thus, the
courts must consider the rules of procedure of the Department of Justice in
conducting preliminary investigations whenever the actions of a public
prosecutor is put in question. An examination of the 2008 Revised Manual
for Prosecutors of the Department of JusticeNational Prosecution Service
(DOJNPSManual),therefore,isnecessary.
Same Same The Department of JusticeNational Prosecution Service
(DOJNPS)Manualstatesthattheresolutionoftheinvestigatingprosecutor
should be attached to the information only as far as practicable. Thus,
suchattachmentisnotmandatoryorrequiredundertherules.Wefindthat
there is nothing in the DOJNPS Manual requiring the removal of a
resolution by an investigating prosecutor recommending the dismissal of a
criminalcomplaintafteritwasreversedbytheprovincial,cityorchiefstate
prosecutor. Nonetheless, we also note that attaching such a resolution to an
informationfiledincourtisoptionalundertheaforementionedmanual.The
DOJNPS Manual states that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor
shouldbeattachedtotheinformationonlyasfaraspracticable.Thus,such
attachmentisnotmandatoryorrequiredundertherules.
Administrative Law Judges Gross Ignorance of the Law Not every
judicialerroristantamounttoignoranceofthelawandifitwascommitted
in good faith, the judge need not be subjected to administrative
sanction.Noteveryjudicialerroristantamountto

_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

596

596 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Abanadovs.Bayona

ignorance of the law and if it was committed in good faith, the judge need
notbesubjectedtoadministrativesanction.Whilecomplainantadmittedthat
he erred in insisting on the production of the Jarder Resolution despite the
provisions of the DOJNPS Manual, such error cannot be categorized as
grossignoranceofthelawashedidnotappeartobemotivatedbybadfaith.
Indeed,therulesofprocedureintheprosecutionofficewerenotclearasto
whetherornotaninvestigatingprosecutorsresolutionofdismissalthathad
beenreversedbythecityprosecutorshouldstillformpartoftherecords.
Same Same Gross Misconduct Gross misconduct presupposes
evidence of grave irregularity in the performance of duty.Neither did
respondents action amount to gross misconduct. Gross misconduct
presupposesevidenceofgraveirregularityintheperformanceofduty.Inthe
case at bar, respondents act of requiring complainant to explain why he
should not be cited in contempt for his failure to submit the Jarder
Resolution in court was in accordance with established rules of procedure.
Furthermore, complainant did not abuse his contempt power as he did not
pursue the proceedings in view of the May 29, 2009 and June 15, 2009
Gellada orders. Lastly, as previously discussed, respondent issued those
orders in good faith as he honestly believed that they were necessary in the
fair and just issuance of the warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 0903
16474.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Ignorance of the Law or Procedure, Gross Misconduct and
Violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 12 Dated June 30,
1987.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

LEONARDODECASTRO,**J.:
ThecasenowbeforethisCourtsprangfromCriminalCaseNo.
090316474,entitledPeopleofthePhilippinesv.Cresen

_______________
**ActingChairpersonperSpecialOrderNo.1226datedMay30,2012.

597

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 597
Abanadovs.Bayona

cio Palo, Sr.1 On March 24, 2009, complainant City Prosecutor

Armando P. Abanado filed the Information2 in the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Bacolod City, which was eventually raffled to
Branch7thereofpresidedbyrespondentJudgeAbrahamA.Bayona.
 On April 13, 2009, respondent issued the following order in
CriminalCaseNo.090316474inconnectionwiththeissuanceofa
warrantofarrestagainsttheaccusedtherein:

Pursuantto[Section]6,paragraph(a)inrelationto[paragraph]b,Rule112
oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,theOfficeoftheCityProsecutorof
BacolodCityisherebyorderedtopresentadditionalevidence,relevantrecords
and documents to enable this Court to evaluate and determine the existence of
probablecause,towit:
1.CopyoftheMemorandumofPreliminaryInvestigation
2.ResolutionoftheInvestigatingProsecutoronRecord,ProsecutorDennis
S.Jarder[JarderResolution]
3.Memorandum of the transfer of case assignment from designated
InvestigatingProsecutortotheCityProsecutor[and]
4.Exhibit to the Court, the copies of all documents submitted by the
complainantandtherespondents[therein]forcomparison,authentication
andcompletenessofthephotocopiesattachedtotheinformation.
Complianceisrequiredwithinfive(5)daysfromreceiptofthisOrder.3

OnApril29,2009,theOfficeoftheCityProsecutorsubmitteda
copyoftheMemorandumofPreliminaryInvestigationandinformed
respondentthatthedocumentssubmittedby

_______________
1ForViolationofSection12,RepublicActNo.6539ortheAntiCarnappingAct
of1972.
2Rollo,pp.1718.
3Id.,atp.19.

598

598 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Abanadovs.Bayona

the parties for preliminary investigation were already appended to

thecomplaint,thus,takingcareofitems1,2,and4requiredbythe
April13,2009Order.
Withrespecttoitem3thereof,complainant,inaletteralsodated
April29,2009,explainedthattherewasnomemorandumoftransfer
of the case from the investigating prosecutor, Assistant City
Prosecutor (ACP) Dennis S. Jarder, to him.4 In his aforementioned
letter, complainant discussed that the case was initially handled by
ACP Jarder who found no probable cause against Cresencio Palo,
Sr., accused in Criminal Case No. 090316474. However,
complainant, upon review pursuant to Section 4, Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,5 found otherwise that is,
therewasprob
 _______________
4Id.,atp.22.SignedbyAssociateProsecutionAttorneyILadyLizaRodrigazo
Placido.
5RC,Rule112,Section4provides:
Section4.Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.If the
investigatingprosecutorfindscausetoholdtherespondentfortrial,heshallprepare
theresolutionandinformation.Heshallcertifyunderoathintheinformationthathe,
or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the
complainantandhiswitnessesthatthereisreasonablegroundtobelievethatacrime
hasbeencommittedandthattheaccusedisprobablyguiltythereofthattheaccused
wasinformedofthecomplaintandoftheevidencesubmittedagainsthimandthathe
was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall
recommendthedismissalofthecomplaint.
Withinfive(5)daysfromhisresolution,heshallforwardtherecordofthecaseto
theprovincialorcityprosecutororchiefstateprosecutor,ortotheOmbudsmanorhis
deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its
originaljurisdiction.Theyshallactontheresolutionwithinten(10)daysfromtheir
receiptthereofandshallimmediatelyinformthepartiesofsuchaction.
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating
prosecutorwithoutthepriorwrittenauthority

599

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 599
Abanadovs.Bayona

able cause against Palo. Thus, complainant disapproved ACP

JardersResolutionandfiledtheInformationincourt.6
Respondentwasnonethelessdissatisfiedwiththeexplanationof
theOfficeoftheCityProsecutor.InanOrderdatedMay5,2009,7
respondent stated that the Jarder Resolution (dismissing the
complaint) was part and parcel of the official records of the case
and,forthisreason,mustformpartoftherecordsofthepreliminary
investigation. He further stated that because there was a conflict
between Jarders and complainants resolutions, those documents
werenecessaryintheevaluationandappreciationoftheevidenceto
establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
againstPalo.

_______________
or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the
Ombudsmanorhisdeputy.
Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the
complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy on the
ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the
information against the respondent, or direct another assistant prosecutor or
stateprosecutortodosowithoutconductinganotherpreliminaryinvestigation.
IfuponpetitionbyaproperpartyundersuchrulesastheDepartmentofJusticemay
prescribeormotuproprio,theSecretaryofJusticereversesormodifiestheresolution
of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the
prosecutorconcernedeithertofilethecorrespondinginformationwithoutconducting
anotherpreliminaryinvestigation,ortodismissormovefordismissalofthecomplaint
or information with notice to the parties. The same rule shall apply in preliminary
investigationsconductedbytheofficersoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsman.(Emphasis
supplied.)
6Rollo,pp.2021.
7Id.,atpp.2325.

600

600 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Abanadovs.Bayona

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, [complainant] is

hereby ordered to complete the records of this case by producing in Court
thisofficialandpublicdocument(ResolutionoftheInvestigatingProsecutor
Dennis S. Jarder), required by the Revised Rules o[f] Criminal Procedure,
Rules of Court. Compliance is required within five (5) days from receipt
hereof.FailnotunderthepainofContempt.8

OnMay11,2009,inviewoftheforegoingorder,theOfficeof
theCityProsecutoragainsentaletter9 explaining the impossibility
ofsubmittingtheJarderResolutiontothecourt.Theletterstatedthat
theJarderResolutionwasnolongerpartoftherecordsofthecaseas
itwasdisapprovedbycomplainantanditattachedaletterofChief
StateProsecutorJovencitoZuowhichreads:

ThisreferstoyourletterdatedApril18,2008.Foryourinformation,all
resolutions prepared by an Investigating Prosecutor after preliminary
investigationshallformpartoftherecordofthecase.Butiftheyhavebeen
disapprovedbytheProvincial/CityProsecutor,thesameshallnotbereleased
to the parties and/or their counsels. Thus, only resolutions approved by the
Provincial/City Prosecutor for promulgation and release to the parties shall
bemadeknowntothepartiesand/ortheircounsel.10

Respondent did not accept the explanations made by the Office

oftheCityProsecutorandinsistedinsteadthattheJarderResolution
should form part of the records of the case. Thus, in an Order11
datedMay14,2009,herequiredcomplainanttoexplainwithinfive
days from the receipt thereof why he should not be cited for
contemptunderSection3,Rule71oftheRulesofCourt.12

_______________
 8Id.,atp.25.
9Id.,atp.26.
10Id.,atp.92.
11Id.,atpp.2729.
12RC,Rule71,Section3provides:

601

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 601
Abanadovs.Bayona

ComplainantreceivedtheaforementionedorderonMay15,2009
andrequestedforatendayextensiontocomplywithit.13

_______________
SEC.3.Indirectcontempttobepunishedafterchargeandhearing.Aftera
charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to
commentthereonwithinsuchperiodasmaybefixedbythecourtandtobeheardby
himselforcounsel,apersonguiltyofanyofthefollowingactsmaybepunishedfor
indirectcontempt:
(a)Misbehaviorofanofficerofacourtintheperformanceofhisofficialdutiesor
inhisofficialtransactions
(b)Disobedienceoforresistancetoalawfulwrit,process,order,orjudgmentof
acourt,includingtheactofapersonwho,afterbeingdispossessedorejectedfromany
realpropertybythejudgmentorprocessofanycourtofcompetentjurisdiction,enters
orattemptsorinducesanothertoenterintooruponsuchrealproperty,forthepurpose
ofexecutingactsofownershiporpossession,orinanymannerdisturbsthepossession
giventothepersonadjudgedtobeentitledthereto
(c)Anyabuseoforanyunlawfulinterferencewiththeprocessesorproceedings
ofacourtnotconstitutingdirectcontemptundersection1ofthisRule
(d)Anyimproperconducttending,directlyorindirectly,toimpede,obstruct,or
degradetheadministrationofjustice
(e)Assumingtobeanattorneyoranofficerofacourt,andactingassuchwithout
authority
(f)Failuretoobeyasubpoenadulyserved
(g)Therescue,orattemptedrescue,ofapersonorpropertyinthecustodyofan
officerbyvirtueofanorderorprocessofacourtheldbyhim.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from
issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody
pendingsuchproceedings.
13Rollo,p.30.

602

602 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Abanadovs.Bayona

InanOrder14datedMay19,2009,respondentdeniedtherequest
 InanOrder14datedMay19,2009,respondentdeniedtherequest
ofatendayextensionandsetthehearingforthecontemptcharges
onMay26,2009.HelikewiseorderedtheClerkofCourttoissuea
subpoenaducestecumadtestificandumtoACPJarderdirectinghim
to testify on the existence of his resolution dismissing the case
againstPaloandtoOfficeoftheCityProsecutorsRecordsOfficer
Myrna Vaegas to bring the entire record of the preliminary
investigationofthePalocase.
Aggrieved, complainant immediately filed a motion for
inhibition15againstrespondentonMay20,2009claiming:

4.That [Complainant] is now in a quandary because despite the fact

that the production of the disapproved resolution is not required under
Circular Resolution No. 12 for purposes of issuance of warrant of arrest[,]
the Court is very much interested in its production and adding insult to
injury in foisting to cite in contempt the City Prosecutor for its non
production.
5.That the issuance of said order is capricious and whimsical and
issued with grave abuse of discretion. Because as it appears now, the
presidingjudgeisverymuchinterestedintheoutcomeofthiscase,thereby
showingbiasandprejudiceagainsttheprosecution.16

Complainantlikewisefiledapetitionforcertiorariwithaprayer
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to restrain
respondentfromproceeding17withtheMay26,2009hearingofthe
contemptproceedings.ComplainantsprayerforaTROwasgranted
in an Order dated May 25, 2009 by Presiding Judge Pepito B.
GelladaoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch53,BacolodCity.
In an Order18 dated June 15, 2009, Judge Gellada granted the
petitionforcertiorari(GelladaOrder)holdingthat:

_______________
14Id.,atpp.3031.
15Id.,atpp.3233.
16Id.,atp.33.
17DocketedasCivilCaseNo.0913383.
18Rollo,pp.3542.

603

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 603
Abanadovs.Bayona

[W]hen a city or provincial prosecutor reverses the investigating assisting

city or provincial prosecutor, the resolution finding probable cause replaces
the recommendation of the investigating prosecutor recommending the
dismissalofthecase.Theresultwouldbethattheresolutionofdismissalno
longer forms an integral part of the records of the case. It is no longer
required that the complaint or entire records of the case during the
preliminaryinvestigationbesubmittedtoandbeexaminedbythejudge.
Therationalebehindthispracticeisthattherulesdonotintendtounduly
burdentrialjudgesbyrequiringthemtogooverthecompleterecordsofthe
casesallthetimeforthepurposeofdeterminingprobablecauseforthesole
purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused. What is
required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting
documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counteraffidavits, sworn
statements of witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon
which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon
which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of
probablecause.xxx.19(Emphasessupplied.)

The records thereafter make no mention of what happened in

CriminalCaseNo.090316474.
On July 10, 2009, complainant executed the present
administrativecomplaintandthesamewasreceivedbytheOfficeof
theCourtAdministrator(OCA)onAugust20,2009.20Complainant
allegedthereinthatrespondentwasguiltyofgrossignoranceofthe
law or procedure,21 gross misconduct,22 and violation of Supreme
CourtCircularNo.12datedJune30,1987.23Heessentiallyasserted
thatrespondentundulybur

_______________
19Id.,atpp.4041.
20Id.,atpp.210.
21RC,Rule140,Section8(9).
22Id.,Section8(3).
23A hearing is not necessary therefor. In satisfying himself of the existence of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge, following the
establisheddoctrineandprocedure,shalleither(a)personallyevaluatethereportand
thesupportingdocumentssubmittedbytheprosecutorregardingtheexistenceof

604

604 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Abanadovs.Bayona

denedhimselfbyobsessingovertheproductionoftherecordsofthe
preliminaryinvestigation,especiallytheJarderResolution.
Respondent, in his Comment with CounterComplaint for
Disbarment of Prosecutor Abanado,24 essentially reiterated the
importance of the Jarder Resolution in deciding whether to issue a
warrantofarrestinCriminalCaseNo.090316474.Hestatedthat
the document was material and relevant in the proper conduct of
preliminaryinvestigationandtheneutral,objectiveandcircumspect
appreciationoftheJudgeoftheevidencexxxforaproperandjust
determination whether probable cause exist[s] or not for [the]
possible issuance of a warrant of arrest.25 As for respondents
possible issuance of a warrant of arrest.25 As for respondents
countercharge, he claimed complainant should be disbarred for (a)
filing a malicious and unfounded administrative complaint (b)
disrespectanddisobediencetojudicialauthority(c)violationofthe
sanctityofpublicrecords(d)infidelityinthecustodyofdocuments
and(e)misconductandinsubordination.26
In a Reply27 dated October 8, 2009, complainant vehemently
deniedrespondentschargesagainsthimandclaimedthattheywere
merely meant to discourage him from pursuing his just and valid
administrativecomplaint.
On February 2, 2011, the OCA submitted its report and
recommendation.28ItnotedtheJune15,2009GelladaOrder

_______________
probablecauseand,onthebasisthereof,issueawarrantofarrest,or(b)ifonthe
faceoftheinformationhefindsnoprobablecause,hemaydisregardtheprosecutors
certificationandrequirethesubmissionofthesupportingaffidavitsofwitnessestoaid
himinarrivingataconclusionastotheexistenceofprobablecause.(DelosSantos
Reyesv.JudgeMontesa,Jr.,317Phil.101,111247SCRA85,94(1995).
24Rollo,pp.5782datedOctober1,2009.
25Id.,atp.61.
26Id.,atpp.7980.
27Id.,atpp.102107.
28Id.,atpp.118121.

605

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 605
Abanadovs.Bayona

which held that the resolution of the city or provincial prosecutor

finding probable cause replaces the recommendation of the
investigatingprosecutor.Insuchcase,theresolutionrecommending
thedismissalissuperseded,andnolongerformsanintegralpartof
therecordsofthecaseanditneednotbeannexedtotheinformation
filedincourt.Thus,theOCAheldthatcomplainantcannotbeheld
guiltyofcontempt.Nevertheless,becausetherewasnoshowingthat
respondentwasmotivatedbybadfaithandsettledistherulethatthe
acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to the
disciplinaryaction,itrecommendedthat:
(a)The administrative complaint against [respondent] be REDOCKETED as a
regularadministrativecaseand,
(b)[Respondent] be REPRIMANDED with STERN WARNING that a
repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffenseswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.29

WeadoptthefactualfindingsoftheOCAbutfindreasonnotto
imposetherecommendedpenaltyofreprimandonrespondent.
 We are tasked to determine whether respondent was
administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, gross
misconduct and violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 12 dated
June 30, 1987 for requiring the Office of the City Prosecutor to
submittheJarderResolutiontothecourtdespitethereversalthereof.
The conduct of a preliminary investigation is primarily an
executive function.30 Thus, the courts must consider the rules of
procedure of the Department of Justice in conducting preliminary
investigationswhenevertheactionsofapublic

_______________
29Id.,atp.121.
30MetropolitanBankandTrustCompanyv.Tobias,G.R.No.177780,January25,
2012,664SCRA165Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandCerbo,361Phil.401,410301
SCRA475,483(1999).

606

606 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Abanadovs.Bayona

prosecutor is put in question. An examination of the 2008 Revised

Manual for Prosecutors of the Department of JusticeNational
ProsecutionService31(DOJNPSManual),therefore,isnecessary.
ThepertinentprovisionsoftheDOJNPSManualareasfollows:

J.PREPARATIONOFTHERESOLUTION
1.WhenThereisLackofProbableCause
Iftheinvestigatingprosecutordoesnotfindsufficientbasisforthe
prosecution of the respondent, he shall prepare the resolution
recommendingthedismissalofthecomplaint.
xxxx
3.FormoftheResolutionandNumberofCopies
Theresolutionshallbewrittenintheofficiallanguage,personallyand
directly prepared and signed by the investigating prosecutor. It shall be
prepared in as many copies as there are parties, plus five (5) additional
copies.
xxxx
e.ContentsoftheBodyoftheResolution
Ingeneral,thebodyof[the]resolutionshouldcontain:
1.abriefsummaryofthefactsofthecase
2.aconcisestatementoftheissuesinvolved
3.applicablelawsandjurisprudenceand
4.the findings, including an enumeration of all the
documentary evidence submitted by the parties and
recommendationsoftheinvestigatingprosecutor.
Allmaterialdetailsthatshouldbefoundintheinformationpreparedby
theInvestigatingProsecutorshallbestatedintheresolution.
 _______________
31SupersedingDepartmentOrderNo.153,s.1996.

607

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 607
Abanadovs.Bayona

xxxx
K.TRANSMITTAL OF THE RECOMMENDATORY RESOLUTION AND
INFORMATIONTOGETHERWITHTHECOMPLETERECORDOFTHE
CASE
The investigating prosecutor shall forward his [recommendation]
andInformation,togetherwiththecompleterecordsofthecase,tothe
Chief State/Regional State/Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned
withinfive(5)daysfromthedateofhisresolution.
xxxx
3.DocumentstobeAttachedtotheInformation
Aninformationthatisfiledincourtshall,asfaraspracticable,be
accompanied by a copy of the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor, the complainants affidavit, the sworn statements of the
prosecutionswitnesses,therespondentscounteraffidavitandthesworn
statements of his witnesses and such other evidence as may have been
taken into account in arriving at a determination of the existence of
probablecause.
4.ConfidentialityofResolutions
All resolutions prepared by an investigating prosecutor after
preliminaryinvestigation,whetherhisrecommendationbeforthe
filing or dismissal of the case, shall be held in strict confidence
andshallnotbemadeknowntotheparties,theircounselsand/or
to any unauthorized person until the same shall have been
finally acted upon by the Chief State/Regional
State/Provincial/City Prosecutor or his duly authorized
assistant and approved for promulgation and release to the
parties.
xxxx
L.ACTION OF THE CHIEF STATE/REGIONAL STATE/PROVINCIAL OR
CITYPROSECUTORONTHERECOMMENDATORYRESOLUTION

608

608 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Abanadovs.Bayona

The Chief State/Regional State/Provincial or City Prosecutor

concernedshallactonallresolutionswithinaperiodofthirty(30)
daysfromreceiptthereof,extendibleforanotherthirty(30)daysin
 casesinvolvingcomplexissuesand/orheavyworkloadofthehead
ofoffice,byeither:
xxxx
3.reversingtherecommendationoftheinvestigatingprosecutor,in
which case, the Chief State/Regional State/Provincial or City
Prosecutor
a.mayfilethecorrespondingInformationincourt(exceptthe
RegionalStateProsecutor)or
b.directanyotherstateprosecutororassistantprosecutor,as
thecasemaybe,todoso.
Inbothinstances,thereisnomoreneedfortheheadof
office concerned to conduct another preliminary
investigation.(Emphasessupplied.)

Based on the foregoing, the guidelines for the documentation of a

resolution by an investigating prosecutor, who after conducting
preliminaryinvestigation,findsnoprobablecauseandrecommends
adismissalofthecriminalcomplaint,canbesummedasfollows:
(1)the investigating prosecutor prepares a resolution
recommendingthedismissalandcontainingthefollowing:
a.summaryofthefactsofthecase
b.concisestatementoftheissuesthereinand
c.hisfindingsandrecommendations.
(2)within five days from the date of his resolution, the
investigating fiscal shall forward his resolution to the
provincial,cityorchief state prosecutor, as the case may be,
forreview

609

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 609
Abanadovs.Bayona

(3)if the resolution of the investigating prosecutor is reversed

bytheprovincial,cityorchiefstateprosecutor,thelattermay
file the information himself or direct another assistant
prosecutororstateprosecutortodoso
(4)the resolution of the investigating prosecutor shall be
strictly confidential and may not be released to the parties,
their counsels and/or any other unauthorized person until the
sameshallhavebeenfinallyacteduponbytheprovincial,city
or chief state prosecutor or his duly authorized assistant and
approvedforpromulgationandreleasetothepartiesand
(5)that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the
complainants affidavit, the sworn statements of the
prosecutionswitnesses,therespondentscounteraffidavitand
theswornstatementsofhiswitnessesandsuchotherevidence,
asfaraspracticable,shallbeattachedtotheinformation.
 WefindthatthereisnothingintheDOJNPSManualrequiring
the removal of a resolution by an investigating prosecutor
recommending the dismissal of a criminal complaint after it was
reversedbytheprovincial,cityorchiefstateprosecutor.
Nonetheless,wealso note that attaching such a resolution to an
information filed in court is optional under the aforementioned
manual. The DOJNPS Manual states that the resolution of the
investigatingprosecutorshouldbeattachedtotheinformationonly
as far as practicable. Thus, such attachment is not mandatory or
requiredundertherules.
Inviewoftheforegoing,theCourtfindsthatrespondenterredin
insisting on the production of the Jarder Resolution when all other
pertinent documents regarding the preliminary investigation have
beensubmittedtohiscourt,andingoingsofarastomotuproprio
initiatingaproceedingforcontemptagainstcomplainant.

610

610 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Abanadovs.Bayona

However, not every judicial error is tantamount to ignorance of

thelawandifitwascommittedingoodfaith,thejudgeneednotbe
subjected to administrative sanction.32 While complainant admitted
thatheerredininsistingontheproductionoftheJarderResolution
despitetheprovisionsoftheDOJNPSManual,sucherrorcannotbe
categorizedasgrossignoranceofthelawashedidnotappeartobe
motivated by bad faith. Indeed, the rules of procedure in the
prosecution office were not clear as to whether or not an
investigating prosecutors resolution of dismissal that had been
reversedbythecityprosecutorshouldstillformpartoftherecords.
Neither did respondents action amount to gross misconduct.
Grossmisconductpresupposesevidenceofgraveirregularityinthe
performance of duty.33 In the case at bar, respondents act of
requiring complainant to explain why he should not be cited in
contemptforhisfailuretosubmittheJarderResolutionincourtwas
in accordance with established rules of procedure. Furthermore,
complainantdidnotabusehiscontemptpowerashedidnotpursue
the proceedings in view of the May 29, 2009 and June 15, 2009
Gelladaorders.34Lastly,aspreviouslydiscussed,respondentissued
those orders in good faith as he honestly believed that they were
necessary in the fair and just issuance of the warrant of arrest in
CriminalCaseNo.090316474.
As far as the disbarment charges against complainant are
concerned, under the Rules of Court, complaints for disbarment
againstalawyerareordinarilyreferredtoaninvestigatorwhoshall
lookintotheallegationscontainedtherein.35
 _______________
32AmanteDescallarv.JudgeRamas,A.M.No.RTJ082142,March20,2009,582
SCRA22.
33SeeOcampov.ArcayaChua,A.M.OCAI.P.I.No.072630RTJ,April23,2010,
619SCRA59,9293.
34Cf. Tabujara III v. GonzalesAsdala, A.M. No. RTJ082126, January 20, 2009,
576SCRA404,413414.
35SeeRC,Rule139B.

611

VOL.677,JULY30,2012 611
Abanadovs.Bayona

However, in the interest of expediency and convenience, as the

matters necessary for the complete disposition of the counter
complaintarefoundintherecordsoftheinstantcase,wedisposeof
the same here. We find no merit in the countercharges. It appears
from the records that complainants nonsubmission of the Jarder
Resolutionwasmotivatedbyhishonestbeliefthathisactionwasin
accord with the procedures in the prosecution office. It likewise
cannot be said that the filing of the present administrative case
againstJudgeBayonawastaintedwithimpropermotiveorbadfaith.
ACCORDINGLY, the complaint against Judge Abraham A.
BayonaoftheMunicipalTrialCourtinCities,BacolodCity,Branch
7isDISMISSED.
The countercomplaint against City Prosecutor Armando P.
AbanadoislikewiseDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.

Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr. and PerlasBernabe,***

JJ.,concur.

Complaintdismissed.

Notes.The determination of the existence of probable cause

lieswithinthediscretionoftheprosecutingofficersafterconducting
a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party.
(Kalalovs.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,619SCRA141[2010])
Distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the
preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the
offender should be held for trial or be released. (People vs. Grey,
625SCRA523[2010])
o0o

_______________
***PerSpecialOrderNo.1227datedMay30,2012.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.