[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1488.

June 20, 2000]

JUANA MARZAN-GELACIO, complainant, vs. Jude ALI!IO ". #LORE$ %n
&%' ()*)(%+, )' !-e'%d%n Jude, .-)n(& 20, RTC, "%)n, I/o(o' $u-,
respondent.
0 E C I $ I O N
1NARE$2$ANTIAGO, J.3
Before Us is an administrative complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law and
Evident Partiality brought by Complainant Juana ar!an"Gelacio against
respondent Judge #lipio $% &lores' Presiding Judge of the (egional )rial Court
*()C+ of $igan' Ilocos ,ur' Branch -.%
Culled from the records' the facts of the case' as summed by the /ffice of the
Court #dministrator */C#+ are as follows0
s% Juana ar!an Gelacio filed two *-+ counts of rape against
Emmanuel #rta1os% )he said cases were doc2eted as Criminal Cases
3os% 4567 and 4566% It was thereafter raffled to the sala of respondent
Judge #lipio &lores' ()C' Branch -.' $igan' Ilocos ,ur%
/n &ebruary -8' 5966' presumably after going over the records of the
case and the recommendation of 5st #ssistant Provincial Prosecutor
(edentor Cardenas' Judge &lores concluded that the evidence of guilt
was wea2 but made a finding of a probable cause% Conse:uently' he
issued warrants of arrest with a recommendation of P-..'...%..
bailbond in both cases%
/n arch 58' 5996' complainant through her private prosecutor' #tty%
Jessie Emmanuel #% $i!carra' filed an Urgent otion to ;eny Bail% )wo
*-+ months thereafter' more particularly on ay -7' 5996 counsel for the
accused' #tty% ,alacnib Baterina filed a Petition to (educe Bailbond with
a notation0 <3o ob1ection for P5..'...%.. in each case by Provincial
Prosecutor Jessica G% $iloria%<
/n June 56' 5996' Judge &lores issued an order denying the <otion to
;eny Bail< filed by the Private Prosecutor stating that the proper and
appropriate recourse of an aggrieved party' as in these cases' should
have been to as2 for a reconsideration of the granting of bail to the
Provincial Prosecutor and=or appeal direct to the ,ecretary of Justice'
being a capital offense' within the reglementary period set forth by the
(ules of said /ffice%
In the same order' the Petition to (educe #mount of Bail was held in
abeyance pending arrest and=or voluntary surrender of the accused%
#pparently' on June --' 5996 Judge &lores issued an order granting otion
for (eduction of Bail of the accused% *3o copy of /rder dated June --' 5996
was attached+%
/n July 6' 5996 the Private Prosecution filed a otion to Cancel Bail Bonds
of the #ccused with the imprimatur of #ssistant Public Prosecutor #rnulfo
an!ano%
/n July 5>' 5996' Judge #lipio &lores' acting on the said motion' treated the
same as a otion for (econsideration on the granting of bail' and granted the
same% )he motion to cancel bail was held in abeyance pending arrest of the
accused% ?e li2ewise recalled the /rders dated June 56 and --' 5996' which
he issued and ordered the immediate arrest of the accused%
/n July --' 5996' Judge &lores denied the otion to Cancel Bailbond and
reinstated his /rders dated June 56 and --' 5996% )he /rder of #rrest for the
accused was li2ewise :uashed% Judge &lores in issuing this /rder relied on
the stand of the Public Prosecutor that in accordance with the guidelines of
the ;epartment of Justice the cases are bailable%
It was in the granting of a bail in the crime of rape where complainant
:uestions the actuation of respondent Judge%
Complainant contends that respondent Judge is ignorant of the law when he
granted bail without giving the prosecution a chance to prove the guilt of the
accused% ,he claims that it is very elementary for him not to 2now that
petition for bail must be set for hearing%
/n #ugust -7' 5996' Court #dministrator #lfredo L% Benipayo by way of 5st
Indorsement re:uired Judge #lipio $% &lores to answer the complaint of s%
Juana ar!an Gelacio%
(espondent Judge in his comment alleged in sum that0
5%%%%%/n or before &ebruary -8' 5996' before ma2ing a finding of probable
cause and issuance of the corresponding @arrants of #rrest in the said cases
and finding that 5st #ssistant Provincial Prosecutor (edentor Cardenas
recommended bailbonds of P-..'...%.. for each of the cases' called the
branch prosecutor' >rd #ssistant Provincial Prosecutor #rnulfo an!ano in
his chambers after the morning session to find out whether or not the
recommendation for bail was not inadvertent% )he latter informed that the
complainant was not able to prove all the elements of rape and under their
*&iscalAs+ guidelines on Bailbonds' the same is bailable% )hereafter' the
&iscalAs /ffice even sent their 5997 Guidelines on BailbondsB
-%%%%%#fter a careful perusal of the records of the two *-+ cases' more
particularly the only evidence on record which is the affidavit of the
complainant Gelacio and the resolution thereof' he *respondent+
concluded that the evidence of guilt was wea2 but made a finding of
probable cause' issued the corresponding warrant of arrest with a
recommendation of P-..'...%.. bailbond in both cases' both on
&ebruary -8' 5996B
>%%%%%/n arch 58' 5996' private complainant through private prosecutor'
#tty% Jessie Emmanuel #% $i!carra' filed an Urgent otion to ;eny Bail'
and on ay -7' 5996 accused through' #tty% ,alacnib Baterina' filed a
Petition to (educe Bailbond with a notation for0 3o /b1ection for
P5..'...%.. in each case by the Provincial Prosecutor Jessica G%
$iloriaB
4%%%%%Because of the inconsistent stand of the Private Prosecutor and
Public Prosecutor' the Court in its order dated June -' 5996' treated first
the otionC to ;eny Bailbond by ordering the Public Prosecutor and
defense to comment=oppose the same within 5. days from receipt
thereof' with the Petition to (educe Bailbonds meantime held in
abeyance%
/n June 56' 5996' the Court issued the order now under :uestion%
D%%%%%It is also noteworthy to mention that the private prosecutor on 6 July
5996 filed a otion to Cancel Bail Bonds of the #ccused' which the
Court motu proprio set for hearing on July --' 5996%
In said hearing the Public Prosecution through >rd #ssistant Provincial
Prosecutor #rnulfo an!ano opposed the cancellation of Bailbonds
maintaining the stand of the prosecution that both offenses are bailable%
8%%%%%?e does not personally 2now the accused nor the private
complainant' and the :uestioned cases had resulted in a battle royale
between the private prosecution and the public prosecution with respect
to the bailbond issue' in which case law and precedents dictate that the
public prosecution has control and supervision over the private
prosecutor' in spite of this' the Court had always given the latter the
right to be heardB
7%%%%%)here can be no partiality on his part as this is the only (ape case
filed in Court where the Prosecution recommended bailB
6%%%%%)he remedy of the Private Prosecution should have been to
:uestion his final order by proper proceedings to a higher court to test
whether or not he gravely abused its discretion amounting to lac2 of
1urisdiction before an administrative complaint is filed%
/n /ctober -8' 5996' complainant through counsel filed her position paper refuting the
allegations of respondent Judge in his comment and reiterated her former claim that
respondent Judge was ignorant of the law in granting bail without any hearing%
In his comment to Position Paper of Private Complainant and (e1oinder
respondent Judge stressed in sum that in the finding of probable cause and
issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest' the Judge may adopt the
finding of the Provincial Prosecutor%
/n the basis of the foregoing factual narration' the /C# in the evaluation report
recommended that the respondent Judge be fined )en )housand *P5.'...%..+ Pesos
for granting bail without a hearing with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely' reasoning that0
In G%(% 3o% 6.9.8 entitled <#maya' et al% v% /rdone!<' ,eptember D' 5966'
the ?onorable Court ruled that0
<@hatever the fiscal recommends as the amount of bail for
the provisional release of an accused is only
recommendatory% )he Judge still retains the discretion to
apply the precedents laid down by the ,upreme Court
regarding the reasonable nature of the bail to be re:uired%
It is not bound by the &iscalAs recommendation% ore
binding are the decisions of the ,upreme Court%<
In the case at bar' respondent Judge does not deny that he granted bail to a
person accused of two *-+ counts of rape% ?e however attempted to eEcuse
himself by saying that when he in:uired inside his chambers from the
Prosecutor as to whether there was really a recommendation of bail for
P-..'...%.. for each case and he *&iscal+ answered in the affirmative' he
had no choice' according to him' but to adopt the same% oreover' he added
the Prosecutor relied on the Bail Bond Guide issued by the ;epartment of
Justice% ,uch an eEcuse is unacceptable% It only manifested his wea2ness
and displayed his ignorance of the law and several court decisions on matters
such as this% It is very elementary that felonies are defined and their
corresponding penalties are found in the (evised Penal Code% ?ence'
respondent Judge should not have been misled by the insinuation of the
&iscal that the 5998 Bail Bond Guide clearly eEpresses the bail to be
recommended in the crime of rape% Instead' mindful perhaps of the basic
legal principles' the (evised Penal Code should have prevailed% Besides' he
should have 2nown that the Bail FBondG Guide is addressed to the
Prosecutors and their #ssistants and not to the Judges%
@hat is even more perpleEing is the attitude of the Judge in as2ing the
Prosecutor to eEplain his recommendation of bail% )his is contrary to (ule
-%.5 of Canon - of the Code of Judicial Conduct% In no case is a Judge
allowed to engage in a legal discussion inside his chambers' of the pending
incidents of a case' without the presence of the representatives of the parties%
oreover' it was patent error for him to base his order granting bail
merely on the supporting affidavits attached to the information since
those were merely intended to establish probable cause as a basis for
the issuance of an arrest warrant' and not to control his discretion to
deny or grant in (sic) bail in all situation H i%e%' with or without a motion
from the accused and even without conducting a hearing on the matter%
It is admitted that there was a recommendation of bail% But the
prosecutorAs recommendation' although persuasive' does not
necessarily bind the Court%
# hearing is indispensable before a Judge can aptly (sic) said to be in a
position to determine whether the evidence for the prosecution is wea2
or strong% #nd the discretion to determine whether it is wea2 or strong
may be eEercised only after the evidence is submitted to the Court at
the hearing% @hether in a summary proceeding or in the course of a
regular trial' the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present'
within a reasonable time' as the evidence it may desire to introduce
before the court may resolve the motion for bail%
Besides' the Judge should have 2nown that even when bail is a matter
of right' in fiEing the amount of bail' he is re:uired to ta2e into account a
number of factors' such as the character and reputation of the accused'
forfeiture of other bonds' or whether or not he is a fugitive from 1ustice%
)he fact that the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence' it is still
mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or as2 searching and
clarificatory :uestions from which it may infer the strength of the
evidence of guilt' or the lac2 of it' against the accused% @here the
prosecution does not oppose the application for bail and refuses to
satisfy his burden of proof' but the court has reasons to believe that the
prosecutorAs attitude is not 1ustified' as when he is evidently committing
a gross error or a dereliction of duty' the court' in the interest of 1ustice'
must in:uire from the prosecution as to the nature of his evidence to
determine whether or not it is strong' it being possible that the
prosecutor FmayG have erred in considering it wea2 and therefore' in
recommending bail%
)he foregoing findings and dis:uisitions of the /C# are well ta2en% It is
imperative that 1udges be conversant with basic legal principles%
5F5G
Indeed' the
Code of Judicial Conduct en1oins 1udges to <be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence%<
-F-G
(espondent 1udge owes it to the public and to the
legal profession to 2now the law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy%
>
F>G
Indeed H
5
-
>
# 1udge is called upon to eEhibit more than 1ust a cursory ac:uaintance with
statutes and procedural rulesB it is imperative that he be conversant with
basic legal principles and FbeG aware of well"settled authoritative doctrines%
?e should strive for eEcellence eEceeded only by his passion for truth' to the
end that he be the personification of 1ustice and the (ule of Law%
4F4G
Considering that the granting of bail is common in the litigation of criminal cases
before trial courts' we are not the least impressed with the eEplanation proffered by
respondent Judge in granting bail in this case% /n the contrary' we are dismayed that
he granted bail to an applicant charged with two *-+ counts of rape merely on the basis
of supporting affidavits attached to the information% )he Court has not been remiss in
2eeping trial 1udges informed of the latest developments on the sub1ect%
)he following duties of 1udges in case an application for bail is filed have been clearly
and repeatedly spelled out during seminars conducted by the Philippine Judicial
#cademy' to wit0
5%%%%%In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion' notify the
prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or re:uire him to submit
his recommendation *,ection 56' (ule 554 of the (ules of Court' as
amended+B
-%%%%%@here bail is a matter of discretion' conduct a hearing of the application
for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of
enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; *,ections 7 and 6'
supra+
>%%%%%;ecide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary
of evidence of the prosecutionB
4%%%%%If the guilt of the accused is not strong' discharge the accused upon the
approval of the bail bond *,ection 59' supra+% /therwise' the petition should
be denied%
DFDG
)he procedural necessity of a hearing relative to the grant of bail can not be dispensed
with especially in this case where the accused is charged with a capital offense%
Utmost diligence is re:uired of trial 1udges in granting bail especially in cases where
bail is not a matter of right% Certain procedures must be followed in order that the
accused would be present during trial% #s a responsible 1udge' respondent must not be
swayed by the mere representations of the partiesB instead' he should loo2 into the
real and hard facts of the case%
)o do away with the re:uisite bail hearing especially in those cases where the
applicant is charged with a capital offense <is to dispense with this time"tested
4
D
safeguard against arbitrariness%<
8F8G
It must always be remembered that
imperative 1ustice re:uires the proper observance of indispensable technicalities
precisely designed to ensure it proper dispensation%
7F7G
In this regard' it needs be
stressed that the grant or the denial of bail in capital offenses hinges on the issue
of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong and the
determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of 1udicial
discretion which remains with the judge.
8[8]
/n this point' Cru! v% Iane!a
9F9G
states
in no uncertain terms that H
J in order for the 1udge to properly eEercise his discretion' he must
first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt
is strong. #s decreed in Almeron v. Sardido
1[1]
In eEercising such 1udicial discretion' however' a
judge is re!uired to conduct a hearing wherein both
the prosecution and the defense present evidence
that would point to the strength or wea2ness of the
evidence of guilt. "he discretion of the judge lies
solel# in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight
of the evidence presented during the hearing and not
in the determination of whether or not the hearing
itself should be held for such a hearing is
considered mandatory and absolutely
indispensable before a 1udge can aptly be said to be
in a position to determine whether the evidence for
the prosecution is wea2 or strong%
)hus' when a 1udge grants bail to a person charged
with a capital offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the
re:uired hearing' he is considered guilty of ignorance
or incompetence the gravity of which cannot be
eEcused by a claim of good faith or eEcusable
negligence%
&urther' in $asco v. %apatalo& we said0
,ince the determination of whether or not the
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong is a matter
of 1udicial discretion' the judge is mandated to
conduct a hearing even in cases where the
prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave
the application of 'ail to the discretion of the court.
8
7
6
9
5.
Even more eEplicitly in Santos v. (filada
11[11]
)
@e have held that admission to bail as a matter of discretion presupposes
the e*ercise thereof in accordance with law and guided '# the applica'le
legal principles. )he prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to
present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail'
it is on the basis of such evidence that 1udicial discretion is weighed in
determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong% In other words,
discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines
of procedural due process, that is' after the evaluation of the evidence
submitted by the prosecution% Any order issued in the absence thereof is
not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim, caprice and
outright arbitrariness.
1212!
EEE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%EEE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%EEE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%EEE
"ven the alleged failure of the prosecution to interpose an objection to
the granting of bail to the accused will not justify such grant without
hearing. "his +ourt has uniforml# ruled that even if the prosecution refuses
to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an# o'jection to the motion for 'ail& it
is still mandator# for the court to conduct a hearing or as, searching and
clarificator# !uestions from which it ma# infer the strength of the evidence of
guilt or lac, of it& against the accused. -here the prosecutor refuses to
adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fi* 'ail& the
court ma# as, the prosecution such !uestions as would ascertain the
strength of the State.s evidence or judge the ade!uac# of the amount of the
'ail.
1/[1/]
Irrespective of respondent judge#s opinion that the evidence of
guilt against the accused is not strong, the law and settled
jurisprudence demand that a hearing be conducted before bail may be
fixed for the temporary release of the accused, if bail is at all justified.
1$
1$!
)hus' although the provincial prosecutor had interposed no ob1ection to the
grant of bail to the accused' the respondent 1udge therein should
nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertain
from the prosecution whether the latter was not in fact contesting the bail
application% In addition' a hearing was also necessary for the court to ta2e
into consideration the guidelines set forth in the then ,ection 8' (ule 554 of
the 596D (ules of Criminal Procedure for the fiEing of the amount of the bail%
/nly after respondent 1udge had satisfied himself that these re:uirements
have been met could he then proceed to rule on whether or not to grant bail%
5D
F5DG
55
5-
5>
54
5D
ost emphatic' however' is the recent case of Go' et al% v% Judge Ben1amin #%
Bongolan
58F58G
where owing to the increasing fre:uency of incidents regarding so
basic a sub1ect in criminal procedure despite repeated reminders thereon' an
eEasperated Court spea2ing through r% Justice (eynato ,% Puno castigated the
respondent 1udge for granting bail in a capital offense without conducting a
hearing thus0
Complaints involving irregular approval of bailbond and issuance of
order of release appear to be a common offense of 1udges% In the 5998'
case of Ad)*on 4. 0o5)+),,
16[16]
this Court observed0
<)his is not the first time that a complaint is brought
before this Court involving irregular approval of
bailbond and issuance of order of release% )he Court
again reminds 1udges of lower courts of their role as
the embodiment of competence' integrity and
independence% )his Court believes that in order to
achieve 1ustice' 1udges should' in all cases' diligently
ascertain and conscientiously apply the law in relation
to the facts of each case they hear and decide'
unswayed by partisan interests' public opinion or fear
of criticism% )his is the least that 1udges can do to
sustain the trust reposed on them by the public%<
Earlier in !)de-)n) 4. Cou-+ o7 A**e)/',
18[18]
this Court painsta2ingly
reminded 1udges of the procedure to be followed when a motion for
admission to bail is filed by the accused% It seems' however' that our
reminder has fallen on barren ground% Conse:uently' we find it
opportune to reiterate the rules0
<,ection 5>' #rticle III of the Constitution lays down
the rule that before conviction' all indictees shall be
allowed bail' eEcept only those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence
of guilt is strong% In pursuance thereof' ,ection 4 of
(ule 554' as amended' now provides that all persons
in custody shall' before conviction by a regional trial
court of an offense not punishable by death' reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment' be admitted to bail as a
matter of right% )he right to bail' which may be waived
considering its personal nature and which' to repeat'
arises from the time one is placed in the custody of
the law' springs from the presumption of innocence
accorded every accused upon whom should not be
inflicted incarceration at the outset since after the trial
58
57
56
would be entitled to ac:uittal' unless his guilt be
established beyond reasonable doubt%
<)hus' the general rule is that prior to conviction by the
regional trial court of a criminal offense' an accused is
entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right' the
present eEceptions thereto being the instances where the
accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and
the evidence of guilt is strong% Under said general rule'
upon proper application for admission to bail' the court
having custody of the accused should' as a matter of
course' grant the same after a hearing conducted to
specifically determine the conditions of the bail in
accordance with ,ection 8 *now' ,ection -+ of (ule 554%
(n the other hand& as the grant of 'ail 'ecomes a matter of
judicial discretion on the part of the court under the
e*ceptions to the rule& a hearing& mandatory in nature
and which should 'e summar# or otherwise in the
discretion of the court& is re!uired with the participation of
'oth the defense and a dul# notified representative of the
prosecution& this time to ascertain whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong for the provisional liberty of the
applicant% /f course' the burden of proof is on the
prosecution to show that the evidence meets the re:uired
:uantum%
<@here such a hearing is set upon proper motion or
petition' the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present' within a reasonable time' all the evidence that it
may want to introduce before the court may resolve the
application' since it is e:ually entitled as the accused to
due process% If the prosecution is denied this opportunity'
there would be a denial of procedural due process' as a
conse:uence of which the courtAs order in respect of *sic+
the motion or petition is void% #t the hearing' the petitioner
can rightfully cross"eEamine the witnesses presented by
the prosecution and introduce his own evidence in rebuttal%
@hen' eventually' the court issues an order either granting
or refusing bail' the same should contain a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution' followed by its conclusion as
to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong% %he court,
though, cannot rely on mere affidavits or recitals of
their contents, if timely objected to, for these represent
only hearsay evidence, and thus are insufficient to
establish the &uantum of evidence that the law
re&uires.
1'1'!
59
EEE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%EEE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%EEE
0A 'ail hearing is mandator# to give the prosecution reasona'le opportunit# to
oppose the application '# showing that evidence of guilt is strong.
1[1]
@e note
that the prosecution was caught off guard in the regular hearing of ay -.' 5996'
when #tty% #studillo sprang on it a otion to #mend the Information and &iE Bail%
It is true that when as2ed by Judge Bongolan whether the prosecution would
present additional evidence' Prosecutor Gayao responded in the negative%
,ubse:uently' however' the prosecution changed its mind when it stated in its
/pposition that a resolution of the otion for admission to bail would be
premature since it has additional witnesses to present% In his Comment' Judge
Bongolan contends that it is not necessary for the prosecution to present all its
witnesses before he could resolve the motion for bail% )he stance cannot be
sustained% In .o-%n)) 4. T)5%n,
21[21]
we ruled that the prosecution must be
given an opportunity to present its evidence within a reasonable time whether the
motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved
in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial% If the prosecution is
denied such an opportunity' there would be a violation of procedural due
process% )he records show that the prosecution was supposed to present its 8th
and 7th witnesses on June 4' 5996 when Judge Bongolan prematurely resolved
the motion% A 'ail application does not onl# involve the right of the accused to
temporar# li'ert#& 'ut li,ewise the right of the State to protect the people and the
peace of the communit# from dangerous elements. "hese two rights must 'e
'alanced '# a magistrate in the scale of justice& hence& the necessit# for hearing
to guide his e*ercise of discretion.
@e note too that Judge Bongolan fiEed the bail at PD.'...%.. without
showing its reasonableness% In Tu(), 4. 0o5))',
22[22]
we held that
while the Provincial Prosecutor did not interpose an ob1ection to the
grant of bail' still' respondent 1udge should have set the petition for bail
hearing for the additional reason of ta2ing into account the guidelines
for fiEing the amount of bail%
->F->G
)hus' we fined the erring 1udge for
gross ignorance of the law%
It must be pointed out in this regard that <FJGudicial discretion' by its very nature'
involves the eEercise of the 1udgeAs individual opinion and the law has wisely
provided that its eEercise be guided by well"2nown rules which' while allowing
the 1udge rational latitude for the operation of his own individual views' prevent
them from getting out of control%
-4F-4G
In other words' 1udicial discretion is not
unbridled but must be supported by a finding of the facts relied upon to form an
opinion on the issue before the court%
-DF-DG
-.
-5
--
->
-4
-D
In numerous cases
-8F-8G
we repeatedly ruled that the courtAs order granting or refusing
bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its
conclusion whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong% Indeed' the summary of
evidence for the prosecution which contains the 1udgeAs evaluation of the evidence
may be considered as an aspect of 1udicial due process for both the prosecution and
the defense%
-7F-7G
3owhere is such summary to be found in the assailed orders of
respondent 1udge%
@ith clear"cut procedural guidelines on bail now incorporated in the (ules of Court'
1udges have been en1oined to study them well and be guided accordingly% Concededly'
1udges can not be faulted for honest lapses in 1udgment but this defense has become
shopworn from overuse% )o reiterate' although the Provincial Prosecutor had
interposed no ob1ection to the grant of bail to the accused' respondent 1udge should
have set the application or petition for bail for hearing%
-6F-6G
If the prosecution refuses to
adduce evidence or fails to interpose an ob1ection to the motion for bail' it is still
mandator# for the court to conduct a hearing or as, searching and clarificator#
!uestions.
12[12]
&or even the failure of the prosecution to interpose an ob1ection to the
grant of bail to the accused will not 1ustify such grant without a hearing%
>.F>.G
#s pointedly stated in $antuas v. 3angadapun
/1[/1]
<F)Go grant an application for bail
and fiE the amount thereof without a hearing duly called for the purpose of determining
whether the evidence of guilt is strong constitutes ignorance or incompetence whose
grossness cannot be eEcused by a claim of good faith or eEcusable negligence%
>-F>-G
&urthermore' the Court has held that the failure of the 1udge to conduct the hearing
re:uired prior to the grant of bail in capital offenses is ineEcusable and reflects gross
ignorance of the law and a cavalier disregard of its re:uirement%<
>>F>>G
Given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case' we find the
recommended penalty of the /C# in the evaluation report appropriate%
89ERE#ORE' in view of all the foregoing' respondent Judge is hereby &I3E; )en
)housand Pesos *P5.'...%..+ and ,)E(3LI @#(3E; that a repetition of the same
or similar infractions complained of will be dealt with more severely%
$O OR0ERE0.
4avide& 5r.& +.5.&(+hairman)& 3uno& 6apunan& and 3ardo& 55.& concur.
-8
-7
-6
-9
>.
>5
>-
>>