Mainspring of injustice

Gross ignorance of the law excuses no one, especially a judge like this RTC Judge (Judge B). To be sure, Judges are called upon “to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, to be conversant with the basic law, and to maintain the desired professional competence”. These are what Judge B failed to do in this case.

The case involved a criminal complaint filed by a minor (Nora) against the vice mayor of their town (Tancio) for the sexual and lascivious acts committed by the latter against her. After finding probable cause against Tancio for two counts of violation of Section 5, (b) Article III of R.A. 7610 or the “Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”, the MTC judge forwarded the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor with a recommendation allowing Tancio to post bail of P100,000 for each case.

On September 27, 2004, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor issued a resolution on review recommending the filing of two separate Informations for violation of said R.A 7610 against Tancio and the cancellation of the bail bond set by the MTC because the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua when committed by a public officer or employee. Thus two Informations were filed against Tancio by the Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC, which was then presided by Judge M, with no bail recommended.

The warrant of arrest however was not served because Tancio went into hiding and could not be located. Meanwhile Judge M was reassigned to another RTC branch in another district and Judge B was designated to take his place on December 8, 2004. On the very same day, Tancio voluntarily surrendered and filed with the RTC presided by Judge B an urgent ex-parte motion to grant bail. On the same day Judge B granted the ex parte motion and ordered the release of Tancio.

Nora through her private prosecutor moved to reconsider the said order even if it was without the conformity of the public prosecutor. Before considering the merits of said motion Judge B issued an order allowing Tancio to file comment or opposition within ten days. This differing treatment of her motion as against Tancio’s ex parte motion which was granted without hearing her side prompted Nora through her father to file this administrative complaint against Judge B for gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority.

Judge B vehemently denied the charges. He argued that the crime charged against Tancio was a bailable offense and when bail is a matter of right no hearing on the motion to grant bail is required. In fact he argued that the MTC judge who conducted the preliminary investigation already fixed the amount for temporary liberty of Tancio. So he asked for the dismissal of the administrative complaint. Was Judge B correct?

No. Numerous cases have already laid down the rules on the grant or denial of application for bail outlining the duties of a judge which requires them to conduct a hearing thereof and notify the prosecutor of such hearing. Thereafter the judge should decide whether the evidence of guilt is strong based on the summary evidence submitted. If the guilt is not strong, the judge may discharge the accused upon approval of the bail bond. Moreover under the present Rules of Court, notice and hearing are required whether bail is a matter of right or discretion. This discretion lies not in the determination of whether or not a hearing should be held but in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the prosecution’s evidence of guilt against the accused. A hearing is also necessary for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section 9 Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. So the court should conduct a hearing in order to ascertain not only the strength of the State’s evidence but also the adequacy of the amount of bail.

A judge owes the public and the Court the duty to be proficient and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice. Judge M should therefore be fined P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, with a stern warning of a more serious penalty if the same or similar act will be repeated (Villanueva vs. Buaya, A.M. RTJ-08-2131, November 22, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]