Gutierrez V Hernandez - Rule 112 - Section 3
Gutierrez V Hernandez - Rule 112 - Section 3
Gutierrez V Hernandez - Rule 112 - Section 3
FACTS:
An administrative case is filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by complainants P/Supt.
Alejandro Gutierrez et. al, of the Criminal Investigation and Detective Division (CIDD) of the Philippine
National Police (PNP), against Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr. (now retired) for : Gross ignorance of
the law, Impropriety, Grave misconduct, Conduct unbecoming of a judge and Lack of integrity to
continue as a member of the judiciary.
In his Comment, respondent judge denies the all the accusations and contented that there was nothing
anomalous nor irregular in the procedural steps he undertook relative to the subject criminal cases. He
maintains that his act of setting said criminal cases for the arraignment of the complainants, as accused
therein, even without any information having yet been filed, and issuing warrants of arrest despite the
absence of any such information, were all "pursuant to a valid exercise of his judicial function as the
presiding judge of Pinamalayan." He asserts that, contrary to the complainants’ allegation, he conducted
a preliminary investigation and then issued the corresponding warrant of arrest there being a motion
filed by the private offended parties for the early issuance thereof. He further claims that the
determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest is his sole prerogative as
a judge.
As for the imputation of his having coerced and manipulated the private offended parties, the
respondent judge counters that there is no showing that he has a personal interest in those cases. He
vehemently denies his purported participation in a drinking spree while being entertained by two GROs,
stressing that he had never set foot in La Taverna Beach Resort which has apparently been non-
operational since 2003 as attested to by the Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Gloria,
Oriental Mindoro. In any event, respondent points to the lack of evidence substantiating the alleged
entertainment accorded him.
To bolster his assertion of good moral standing in the community, respondent filed a Supplemental
Comment4 on June 16, 2005, therein attaching a recent recognition of his good character, and the
various honors and citations conferred upon him.
In its report of October 19, 2005, the OCA came out with its findings that the respondent judge was
guilty of gross ignorance of procedural rules. Seeing, however, that this is the only administrative
complaint filed against the respondent and that he had compulsorily retired last July 15, 2005, the OCA
recommended that respondent be merely fined in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00),
to be deducted from his retirement benefits.