LUZVIMINDA COMIA vs.

JUDGE CONRADO ANTONA August 14, 2000 **Since bail is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, it can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed. **The courts order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of evidence for the prosecution, otherwise the order may be invalidated because the summary of evidence for the prosecution, which contains the judges evaluation of evidence, may be considered as an aspect of due process both for the prosecution and defense. FACTS: This administrative case stemmed from a sworn affidavit complaint filed by Luzviminda Comia, wife of deceased Numeriano Comia. CA Justice Guerrero summarized the complaints as: 1. ignorance of the law, 2. conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Court, and 3. deliberately violating existing doctrines and jurisprudence laid by the SC. The case for murder for the death of Numeriano Comia was raffled to the court presided by Judge Antona. He issued a WOA against accused Dante Fajardo, Filipina Fajardo, and Pio Arce. Counsels for accused filed a Motion to Defer Issuance of WOA. Upon their MR, Judge Antona suspended the WOA. While still at large, Atty. Dimayacyac Sr. filed a Petition for the Grant of Bail to accused Dante and Filipina with Supplemental Reduction of Bail for Pio. Judge Antona directed that the petition be made part of the records of the case and thereafter, issued an order tentatively setting the hearing of the petition for bail. During the hearing for bail, the prosecutors presented that the WOA was served by the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in QC. Prosecutor continued that a commitment order be issued for the confinement of the accused at the Batangas City Jail. Judge Antona, however, remarked that the 3 accused voluntarily surrendered and the hearing is set specifically for bail and no other. The prosecutor maintained that the 3 accused were still not committed in the proper agency. When bail proceedings were terminated, the 3 accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, Judge Antona granted bail in the amount of P200k each for Dante and Filipina, and P100K for Pio. RULING: Judge Antona is guilty of procedural lapse in hearing the petition for bail in as much as the order and manner of presentation of evidence in the bail hearings were flawed and highly irregular.

Since bail is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, it can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed. Likewise, in granting and reducing bail, Judge Antona failed to recite summary of evidence for the prosecution. In this case, proof is extant that in the bail hearings, the prosecution was not afforded adequate opportunity within a reasonable time to present evidence within its grasp to substantiate the degree and gravity of guilt of the accused, for purposes of resolving bail petition. When the grant of bail is discretionary, as in this case, the issue of whether or not an accused should be admitted to bail lies on the strength of the prosecutions evidence as to their guilt, without prejudice to the right of the defense to cross-examine. Judge Antona is liable for gross ignorance of the law.

FLAVIANO CORTES vs. JUDGE EMERITO AGCAOILI August 20, 1998 FACTS This case stemmed from a sworn letter-complaint of Flaviano Cortes accusing Judge Agcaoili of ignorance of the law for granting bail for humanitarian reason to Eddie Roldan, the accused in the crime of murder. After the prosecution filed its offer of evidence, Roldan filed a petition to bail on the ground that the evidence against him is not strong and that he is suffering from brain injuries due to a vehicular accident. As pairing judge, Judge Agcaoilli, granted the bail of P30K on the ground on Christian charity. The regular presiding judge justified the same but increased the amount to P100K. The questioned order granting bail did not contain a summary of evidence presented. The subsequent order of the regular presiding judge justifying the same cannot rectify said error. CA Justice Martinez investigating the case recommended be found guilty of violation of Code of Judicial Conduct for granting bail to Roldan. RULING: The case of Roldan has an imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Bail in this case can only be granted in the absence of strong evidence of guilt. A judge is not only required to conduct hearing, whether summary or otherwise according to his discretion, to determine the strength of evidence of guilt, but is also mandated to state a summary of evidence offered by the prosecution which is an essential aspect of procedural due process both for the prosecution and defense. The order issued by Judge Agcaoili is defective in form and substance, as it had no recital of any evidence presented by the prosecution. Neither was the grant justified. Further, no supporting documents were submitted to prove that Roldan was indeed in need of medical attention. Judge Emerito Agcaoili is suspended and reprimanded.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ vs. JUDGE CARLOS OFILADA August 5, 1998 FACTS: The 4 accused in the information for murder filed with the RTC of Bulacan were all at large. A WOA was issued against them. A year after, counsel for the accused submitted a Motion for Voluntary Surrender and a Petition for bail of P10K. Judge Ofilada granted the bail in the amount of P10K each and lifted the WOA on the ground of voluntary surrender, absence of prosecutions evidence of guilt, prosecutions failure to object the granting of bail, and the wife of the victims affidavit of desistance. After the prosecution has rested its case, defense filed a demurrer to evidence. Judge Ofilada granted the motion and acquitted the 4 accused. Francisco Hernandez, uncle of the deceased victim, filed a complaint-affidavit against Judge Ofilada for improperly granting bail. RULING: In granting bail to the 4 accused who were all at large, Judge Ofilada violated the rule that bail is unavailing to the accused who has not voluntarily surrendered or to one who has yet to be placed under legal custody. With 8 other administrative cases against him, Judge Ofilada obviously failed to conduct himself in a manner that will justify his continued stay in the judiciary. He is guilty of gross incompetence, ignorance of the law, and evident partiality, all prejudicial to the interest of the government and judicial service.

PEOPLE vs. HON. ALFREDO CABRAL and RODERICK ODIAMAR February 18, 1999 FACTS: Cecille Buenafe filed a rape case against Roderick Odiamar alleging that: 1. Cecille was riding a jeep driven by Odiamar with Stephen Florece; 2. The jeep drove to Pilapil Beach instead of Sabang; 3. Cecille followed down the jeep without protest, voluntarily took 4 shots of gin; 4. Odiamar was able to consummate the crime of rape in a cottage by removing the hands of the offended party and placed them on her knee, that he was able to insert his penis when Cecille was no longer moving; 5. In the physical examination, a healed laceration of the hymen and lesions were discovered. Odiamar filed a motion praying that he be released on bail. The LC granted the bail. RULING: Odiamar was charged with rape qualified with the use of deadly weapon, thus punishable by reclusion perpetua. As such, bail is discretionary. The test is not whether the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. Proof Evident or Evident Proof means clear, strong evidence which leads a well-guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been committed as charged, that accused is a guilty agent and that he will be punished capitally if the law is administered. Presumption Great exists when the circumstances testified to are such that the influence of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion. The LC failed to include significant factors and circumstances which are strong, clear, and convincing. It excluded the testimony of Dr. Belmonte on the psychiatric examination of the victim as well as her findings psychotic signs and symptoms on Cecille. Also, the unrebutted offer of compromise by Odiamar is an implied admission of guilt which should have been noted as admissible evidence. An order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of evidence for the prosecution. An incomplete enumeration or selective inclusion of pieces of evidence for the prosecution in the order cannot be considered a summary, for a summary is necessarily a reasonable recital of evidence presented by the prosecution. A summary that is incomplete is not a summary at all. The decision of the LC and CA is reversed.

ANITA ESTEBAN vs. HON. REYNALDO ALHAMBRA September 7, 2004