Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zuovs.Cabebe
*
A.M.OCANo.031800RTJ.November26,2004.
(FormerlyOCAIPINo.031675RTJ)
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.
383
VOL.444,NOVEMBER26,2004 383
Zuovs.Cabebe
Same Same Rules outlining the duties of the judge in case an
application for bail is filed.In Cortes vs. Catral, we laid down the
following rules outlining the duties of the judge in case an application for
bail is filed: 1. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion,
notifytheprosecutorofthehearingoftheapplicationforbailorrequirehim
tosubmithisrecommendation(Section18,Rule114oftheRevisedRulesof
Criminal Procedure) 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecutionrefusestopresentevidencetoshowthattheguiltoftheaccused
is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound
discretion(Sections7and8,id.)3.Decidewhethertheguiltoftheaccused
isstrongbasedonthesummaryofevidenceoftheprosecution4.Iftheguilt
oftheaccusedisnotstrong,dischargetheaccusedupontheapprovalofthe
bailbond(Section19,id.)otherwisethepetitionshouldbedenied.
SameSameAfter the hearing, the courts order granting or refusing
bail must contain a summary of the evidence of the prosecution and based
thereon, the judge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether the
evidencesopresentedisstrongenoughtoindicatetheguiltoftheaccused.
Based on the abovecited procedure, after the hearing, the courts order
granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence of the
prosecution and based thereon, the judge should formulate his own
conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong enough to
indicatetheguiltoftheaccused.
SameSameThefailuretoraiseortheabsenceofanobjectiononthe
partoftheprosecutioninanapplicationforbaildoesnotdispensewiththe
requirement of a bail hearing.Neither did respondent require the
prosecution to submit its recommendation on whether or not bail should be
granted.Hemaintainsthattheprosecutiondidnotobjecttothegrantofbail
to the accused, hence, he cannot be held administratively liable for not
conductingahearing.InSantosvs.Ofilada,weheldthatthefailuretoraise
ortheabsenceofanobjectiononthepartoftheprosecutioninanapplication
forbaildoesnotdispensewiththerequirementofabailhearing.
AdministrativeLawJudgesKnowinglyrendinganunjustjudgmentor
orderInordertobeheldliableforknowinglyrenderinganunjustjudgment
ororder,respondentjudgemusthaveactedin
384
384 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Zuovs.Cabebe
ADMINISTRATIVEMATTERintheSupremeCourt.Knowingly
RenderingUnjustJudgment,GrossIgnoranceoftheLawand
Partiality.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
385
VOL.444,NOVEMBER26,2004 385
Zuovs.Cabebe
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:
1
Theinstantadministrativecasestemmedfromthesworncomplaint
datedJanuary15,2003ofChiefStateProsecutorJovencitoR.Zuo2
oftheDepartmentofJustice,againstJudgeAlejandrinoC.Cabebe,
thenPresidingJudge,RegionalTrialCourt,Branch18,Batac,Ilocos
Norte. The charges are knowingly rendering an unjust judgment,
grossignoranceofthelawandpartiality.
In his complaint, Chief State Prosecutor Zuo alleged that
Criminal Case No. 395018 for illegal possession of prohibited or
regulateddrugswasfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch18,
Batac,IlocosNorteagainstReyDaquepArcangel,VictorinoGamet
Malabed, William Roxas Villanueva, all police officers, Jocelyn
Malabed Manuel and Pelagio Valencia Manuel. Upon arraignment,
alltheaccused,assistedbytheircounseldeparte,pleadednotguilty
tothecrimecharged.OnMarch14,2001,theprosecutionfiledwith
this Court a petition for change3 of venue but was denied in a
ResolutiondatedAugust13,2001.4 OnOctober8,2001,theaccused
filedamotionforreconsideration. Inthemeantime,theproceedings
beforerespondentscourtweresuspended.
OnMay6,2002,theaccusedfiledamotiontodismissinvoking
asgroundtherightoftheaccusedtoaspeedytrial.OnNovember5,
5
2002,respondentjudgemotuproprioissuedanOrder grantingbail
to the accused, fixing the bail for each at P70,000.00 in cash or
property bond at P120,000.00, except for accused Evelyn Manuel
whose bail was fixed at P20,000.00 in cash. Respondent judge
issued the Order without the accuseds application or motion for
bail.
_______________
1FiledwiththeOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator,Rolloatpp.110.
2CompulsorilyretiredfromtheJudiciaryonMarch26,2003.
3AnnexB,Rolloatp.14.
4AnnexC,id.,atpp.1517.
5Rolloatpp.1920.
386
386 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Zuovs.Cabebe
6
Theprosecutionthenfiledamotionforreconsideration. Insteadof
acting thereon, respondent judge issued an order inhibiting himself
fromfurtherproceedingwiththecase,realizingthatwhathedidwas
patentlyirregular.Complainantthuspraysthatrespondentjudgebe
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and be
disbarredfromthepracticeoflaw.
7
Inhiscomment, respondentdeniedthecharges.Whileadmitting
thatheissuedtheOrderdatedNovember5,2002grantingbailtothe
accused without any hearing, the same was premised on the
constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial. There was
delayintheproceedingsduetocomplainantsfrequentabsencesand
failure of the witnesses for the prosecution to appear in court,
resultinginthecancellationofthehearings.Theprosecutiondidnot
8
object to the grant of bail to the accused. He added that the
administrativecomplaintfiledagainsthimispurelyharassment.Itis
nottheappropriateremedytoquestionhisallegederroneousOrder.
Accordingly, and considering his forty (40) years of government
service,hepraysthattheadministrativecomplaintbedismissed.
OnMarch26,2003,respondentjudgecompulsorilyretired.
In his Report dated July 7, 2003, Deputy Court Administrator
Jose P. Perez found respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of
the law and recommended that a fine of P20,000.00 be imposed
upon him, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similaroffensewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
9
In our Resolution dated August 25, 2003, we directed that the
complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and
requiredthepartiestomanifestwhethertheyare
_______________
6Id.,atpp.2128.
7Id.,atpp.3946.
8SupplementalComment,Rolloatpp.5052.
9Id.,at61.
387
VOL.444,NOVEMBER26,2004 387
Zuovs.Cabebe
submittingthecaseforresolutiononthebasisofthepleadingsfiled.
Both parties submitted the required manifestations that they are
submittingthecasefordecisiononthebasisoftherecords. 10
In DocenaCaspe vs. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, we held that
jurisprudenceisrepletewithdecisionsontheproceduralnecessityof
a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, relative to the grant of
bail, especially in cases involving offenses punishable by death,
reclusionperpetua, or life imprisonment, where bail is a matter of
discretion. Under the present Rules, a hearing is mandatory
11
in
grantingbailwhetheritisamatterofrightordiscretion. Itmustbe
stressedthatthegrantorthedenialofbailincaseswherebailisa
matter of discretion, hinges on the issue of whether or not the
evidenceofguiltoftheaccusedisstrong,andthedeterminationof
whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial
discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the latter to
properly exercise his discretion, he must first conduct
12
a hearing to
determinewhethertheevidenceofguiltisstrong. Infact,evenin
cases13 where there is no petition for bail, a hearing should still be
held.
There is no question that respondent judge granted bail to the
accusedwithoutconductingahearing,inviolationofSections8and
18,Rule114oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,quotedas
follows:
_______________
10 A.M. No. RTJ031767, March 28, 2003, 400 SCRA 37, citing Directo vs.
Bautista,346SCRA223(2000)Peoplevs.Cabral,303SCRA361(1999)Bascovs.
Rapatalo,269SCRA220(1997).
11Tevs.Perez,A.M.No.MTJ001286,January21,2002,374SCRA130.
12MarzanGelaciovs.Flores,A.M.No.RTJ991488,June20,2000,334SCRA1,
12, citing Aleria, Jr. vs. Velez, 298 SCRA 611 (1998) Basco vs. Rapatalo, supra
Almeronvs.Sardido,281SCRA415(1997).
13Directovs.Bautista,supra.
388
388 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Zuovs.Cabebe
14 A.M. No. RTJ971387, September 10, 1997, 279 SCRA 1, citing Basco vs.
Rapatalo,supraemphasisanditalicssupplied.
389
VOL.444,NOVEMBER26,2004 389
Zuovs.Cabebe
_______________
15MarzanGelaciovs.Flores,supra.
16Supra.
17Narcisovs.Sta.RomanaCruz,G.R.No.134504,March17,2000,328SCRA505.
18 A.M. RTJ941217, June 16, 1995, 245 SCRA 56 citing Aguirre vs. Belmonte, 237
SCRA778 (1994) Borinaga vs. Tamin,226 SCRA 206 (1993) Libarios vs. Dabalos, 199
SCRA48 (1991) Tucay vs. Domagas,A.M. No. RTJ951286, March 2, 1995, 242 SCRA
110.
390
390 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Zuovs.Cabebe
theprosecutionrefusestoadduceevidenceorfailstointerposeanyobjection
tothemotionforbail,itisstillmandatoryforthecourttoconductahearing
or ask searching and clarificatory questions from which it may infer the
strengthoftheevidenceofguilt,orlackofit,againsttheaccused.Wherethe
prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
grantandfixbail,thecourtmayasktheprosecutionsuchquestionsaswould
ascertain the strength of the States evidence or judge the adequacy of the
amountofbail.Irrespectiveofrespondentjudgesopinionthattheevidence
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
temporaryreleaseoftheaccused,ifbailisatalljustified.
Thus, although the provincial prosecutor had interposed no objection to
the grant of bail to the accused, the respondent judge therein should
neverthelesshavesetthepetitionforbailforhearinganddiligentlyascertain
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 take
intoconsiderationtheguidelinessetforthinthethenSection,6,Rule114of
the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure for the fixing of the amount of the
bail, Only after respondent judge had satisfied himself that these
requirementshavebeenmetcouldhethenproceedtoruleonwhetherornot
tograntbail.
391
VOL.444,NOVEMBER26,2004 391
Zuovs.Cabebe
_______________
19Sacmarvs.JudgeAgnesReyesCarpio,A.M.No.RTJ031766,March28,2003,
400SCRA32.
20HeirsoftheLateNasserD.Yasinvs.Felix,A.M.No.RTJ941167,December4,
1995,250SCRA545.
21A.M.No.RTJ931088,January18,1995,240SCRA154.
22A.M.No.MTJ041518,January15,2004,419SCRA440.
392
392 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Zuovs.Cabebe
23
ineluctableinferenceofbadfaithandmalice, whicharenotpresent
23
ineluctableinferenceofbadfaithandmalice, whicharenotpresent
here.
We thus find respondent judge guilty of violation of Supreme
CourtRules,specificallyRule114oftheRevisedRulesofCriminal
Procedure on the grant of bail. This administrative offense is
consideredalessseriouscharge,punishableunderSection9(4)and
Section11(B2),Rule140ofthesameRules,thus:
Sec.9.LessSeriousCharges.Lessseriouschargesinclude:
xxx
4.ViolationofSupremeCourtRules,directives,andcirculars
xxx
Sec.11.Sanctions.xxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the
followingsanctionsshallbeimposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less
thanone(1)normorethanthree(3)monthsor
2.AfineofmorethanP10,000.00butnotexceedingP20,000.00.
_______________
393
VOL.444,NOVEMBER26,2004 393
Alcarazvs.Lindo
Panganiban(Chairman),CarpioMoralesandGarcia, JJ.,
concur.
Corona,J.,OnLeave.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.