Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    MAGO v. PEÑALOSA-FERMO

    Uploaded by

    Eileen Eika Dela Cruz-Lee
    Judge Peñalosa-Fermo was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure by the Office of the Court Administrator. Prior to 2005, judges had discretion to conduct preliminary investigations themselves and could not delegate this duty. Judge Peñalosa-Fermo delegated the examination of witnesses in a criminal case to her stenographer, having the witnesses study and answer prepared written questions instead of being personally examined. By delegating her duties and allowing this improper examination procedure, Judge Peñalosa-Fermo demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the proper procedures, contributing to erosion of public confidence in the judicial system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MAGO v. PEÑALOSA-FERMO

    Uploaded by

    Eileen Eika Dela Cruz-Lee
    103 views2 pages
    Judge Peñalosa-Fermo was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure by the Office of the Court Administrator. Prior to 2005, judges had discretion to conduct preliminary investigations themselves and could not delegate this duty. Judge Peñalosa-Fermo delegated the examination of witnesses in a criminal case to her stenographer, having the witnesses study and answer prepared written questions instead of being personally examined. By delegating her duties and allowing this improper examination procedure, Judge Peñalosa-Fermo demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the proper procedures, contributing to erosion of public confidence in the judicial system.

    Original Description:

    CONSTI 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Peñalosa-Fermo was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure by the Office of the Court Administrator. Prior to 2005, judges had discretion to conduct preliminary investigations themselves and could not delegate this duty. Judge Peñalosa-Fermo delegated the examination of witnesses in a criminal case to her stenographer, having the witnesses study and answer prepared written questions instead of being personally examined. By delegating her duties and allowing this improper examination procedure, Judge Peñalosa-Fermo demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the proper procedures, contributing to erosion of public confidence in the judicial system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views2 pages

    MAGO v. PEÑALOSA-FERMO

    Uploaded by

    Eileen Eika Dela Cruz-Lee
    Judge Peñalosa-Fermo was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure by the Office of the Court Administrator. Prior to 2005, judges had discretion to conduct preliminary investigations themselves and could not delegate this duty. Judge Peñalosa-Fermo delegated the examination of witnesses in a criminal case to her stenographer, having the witnesses study and answer prepared written questions instead of being personally examined. By delegating her duties and allowing this improper examination procedure, Judge Peñalosa-Fermo demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the proper procedures, contributing to erosion of public confidence in the judicial system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    E. DELEGATION OF POWERS EE.M.

    DELACRUZ, DMD

    The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge


    16. RODOLFO R. MAGO v. JUDGE AUREA G. Pealosa-Fermo guilty of gross ignorance of the law
    PEALOSA-FERMO or procedure.

    582 SCRA 1 (2009), SECOND DIVISION ISSUES: Whether or not Judge Pealosa-Fermo
    committed gross ignorance of the law or procedure
    FACTS:
    HELD:
    Rodolfo R. Mago (Mago) alleged that Judge
    Aurea G. Pealosa-Fermo, committed gross Prior to the amendment on October 3, 2005 of
    ignorance of the law and bias in the disposition of his Rules 112 and 114 of the Rules of Court via A.M. No.
    complaint and of the counter-charge against him. 05-8-26-SC, Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of
    Mago claims that when he filed a complaint for Grave the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by
    Coercion against one Alex Roberto Angeles, he Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation
    received a subpoena to attend the preliminary from Judges of the First Level Courts, judges of
    investigation of said criminal case. In compliance, he municipal trial courts were empowered to conduct
    and his witnesses attended and they were examined preliminary investigations in which they exercised
    through a prepared set of questions handed to them discretion in determining whether there was
    by the stenographer. Judge Pealosa-Fermo was not probable cause to hale the respondent into court.
    present then. Such being the case, they could not delegate the
    discretion to another.
    Judge Pealosa-Fermo admitted that the court
    stenographer has a prepared sheet of questions An officer to whom discretion is entrusted
    during the preliminary examination but she claimed cannot delegate it to another, the presumption
    that this is for the convenience of the court being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit
    stenographer and the witnesses. and competent to exercise that judgment and
    E. DELEGATION OF POWERS EE.M.DELACRUZ, DMD

    discretion, and unless the power to substitute


    another in his place has been given to him, he
    cannot delegate his duties to another. Then, as
    now, a personal examination of the complainant in a
    criminal case and his witness/es was required. Thus,
    under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
    Court before its amendment, the investigating
    fiscal was required to certify under oath that he, or
    as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has
    personally examined the complainant and his
    witnesses . . .

    By the Judge Pealosa-Fermo s delegation of


    the examination of the sheriff-complainant
    in the grave threats case to the stenographer,
    and worse, by allowing the witnesses to read/study
    the written questions to be propounded to them and
    to write their answers thereto upon the judges
    justification that the scheme was for the convenience
    of the stenographers, Judge Pealosa-Fermo
    betrayed her lackof knowledge of procedure, thereby
    contributing to the erosion of public confidence in
    the judicial system.

    You might also like