EDUARDO SAN MIGUEL, complainant, vs .

JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ

MACEDA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 275, Las Piñas City,
respondent.
[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749. April 3, 2007.]
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J : p

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: E. Bail – Bail not required/Increase or Reduction of Bail

Case Summary: Eduardo San Miguel was charged with an offense that didn’t fall under the exemption
for the right to bail. Prosecutor filed a motion to cancel recommended bail on the basis of high probability
that petitioner would jump bail. Respondent Judge Maceda granted the motion. Led to current complaint.

SC held that all that a high degree of probability of flight does is to grant the court’s discretion to increase
the bail to an amount that would reasonably assure them that there would be no flight. As such, the grant
of the motion denied the petitioner the right to bail.

Petitioners: Eduardo San Miguel – accused

Respondents: Judge Bonifacio Maceda – presiding judge.

Doctrines Involved: Rule 114, Sec. 4 of the RoC – provides that before conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, all persons in custody of the
law are to be admitted bail as a matter of right.

High Chance of Flight – as held in the case of Sy Guan v. Amparo bail is always a matter of right save in
the exceptions provided in the Constitution. The existence of a high degree of probability that the
defendant will abscond does not mean that they are not entitled to the right. In these cases the courts only
have the discretion to increase the bond to an amount that would reasonably assure them that the
defendant would not jump bail.

FACTS:
1. Complainant, Eduardo San Miguel was arrested for illegal sale, dispensation, distribution, and
delivery of 0.50 grams of meth. He jumped bail.
2. May 10, 2001 – Judge Florentino Alumbres of the RTC of Las Piñas issued a bench warrant and
cancelled the bail bond of San Miguel. Fixed a new bond valued at P120,000 (P60k ung old).
3. Sept. 8, 2001 – Eduardo was arrested – Sept 12 state prosecutor filed a motion to cancel
recommended bail. Motion was based on reasonable belief that the accused was seriously
considering flight from prosecution.
a. Eduardo filed a motion to oppose on Sept. 17 for the hearing of the motion on Sept. 19.
Respondent judge considered the motion to oppose as a motion for reconsideration
instead and required the prosecutor to file a reply on the same day (Sept 17). Basically,
prosecutor’s motion to cancel recommended bail was granted on Sept. 17.
 b. Sept. 21 – Judge Maceda issued an order clarifying that the Sept. 17 order was only to
cancel the P60k bail not the new P120k bail.
4. Eduardo then filed a complaint before the SC, assailing the Sept. 17 order of judge Maceda on the
grounds of issuing the same without giving him the opportunity to comment.
a. Eduardo alleges gross ignorance of the law as the offense charged was neither a capital
offense or punishable by reclusion perpetua thus the Sept. 17 order was intended to deny
him of his constitutional right to bail.
5. March 8 2002 – respondent judge, as required by SC explained that the motion to cancel the
prosecutor’s recommended bail did not need any hearing as the lower court could act on it
without prejudicing the right of the adverse party. What he cancelled was the P60k recommended
bail, not the P120k bail fixed by the later judge.
a. According to Maceda, this meant that the right of the accused to be heard in the motion to
withdraw bail/right to bail was not impaired as he could have posted the P120k bail or
filed for a lifting of the warrant.
b. Also raised the defense that at the time of the complaint, Eduardo was already charged
with murder on Sept. 14, thus couldn’t have posted bail anway.
6. OCA Comment – Evaluation found that complaint had merit.
a. Basically, what the prosecution was praying for was the cancellation of the P120k bail set
by the judge. If said bail was cancelled, then accused wouldn’t be able to post bail. Judge
Maceda, by granting the motion effectively denied him his right to bail.
7. SC – in the interim, required the parties to manifest if they were willing to submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings. January 19, 2007 case was deemed to have been
submitted for resolution.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the grant of the motion to cancel recommended bail violated Eduardo’s right to bail? – YES
a. Art. III, Sec. 13 of the Constitution provides that all persons are entitled to the right to
bail. The only exception those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua,
when the evidence of guilt is strong.
b. Rule 114, Sec. 4 of the RoC – provides that before conviction by the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, all persons in custody
of the law are to be admitted bail as a matter of right.
c. Crime Charged – Edardo was charged with violation of Art. III, Sec. 15 of RA 6425
which was punishable with prison correcional and thus was entitled to bail.
d. Motion to cancel recommended bail – had precise wording. Specified that the allowance
for bail based on the warrant of arrest dated May 10, 2001 be cancelled on the basis of
great potential of the accused to jump bail. This clearly referred to the P120k bail.
e. Grant of motion - Judge Maceda granted the motion on Sept. 17. Chose to consider the
motion to oppose filed Eduardo to be a motion for reconsideration. SC says this might
have corrected the earlier mistake by allowing Eduardo a chance to be heard but, no
evidence was adduced by the prosecutor to prove that Eduardo was seriously considering
flight from prosecution. Such evidence is critical to granting or denial of the motion of
the prosecution to cancel bail.
i. Sept. 21 order – could not have exonerated Maceda from liability. Even if he said
that what he cancelled was the P60k bail, this doesn’t make sense. The P60k bail
was already forfeited on account of his earlier flight and the order of Judge
Alumbres. Furthermore, the P120k bail was the subject of the prosecutor’s
motion. Thus, no conclusion other than he cancelled the P120k bail.
 f. Charge of Murder – Maceda failed to consider that the prosecution was calling for the
cancellation of the bail set for violation of RA 6425 (drugs) and not the complaint for
murder. Even granting that the bail was for murder, as provided in Andres v. Beltran the
only thing that happens in offenses punished by capital offenses is that the bail ceases to
be a matter of right. This does not mean that as a rule the accused in those cases are not
entitled to bail. Instead, there must be a judicial determination of whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong in order to justify a grant/cancellation of bail.
i. The prosecution must present evidence to support claim of strong evidence of
guilt.
g. High Chance of Flight – as held in the case of Sy Guan v. Amparo bail is always a matter
of right save in the exceptions provided in the Constitution. The existence of a high
degree of probability that the defendant will abscond does not mean that they are not
entitled to the right. In these cases the courts only have the discretion to increase the bond
to an amount that would reasonably assure them that the defendant would not jump bail.
h. Liability of Maceda – as amatter of public polic, a judge may not be disciplined for error
of judgment unless there is proof that there was conscious and deliberate intent to commit
injustice. Same rule applies for gross ignorance of the law. Order of judge must be both
wrong and motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motive.
i. Due Process – grant of order to cancel bail on Sept. 17, 2 days before scheduled
hearing effectively denied Eduardo the right to due process. This was tantamount
to simple misconduct which is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a
person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of
parties or to the right determination of the cause. Not gross misconduct as gross
connotes something "out of all measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused;
flagrant; shameful."

RULING:

WHEREFORE, Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, RTC, Branch 275, Las Piñas City is
found GUILTY of simple misconduct and FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more
severely.
DEIHAa

SO ORDERED.