Adapon v. Domagtoy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Antonio Adapon, his wife Susie, and Bienvenida Navarro were private complainants in three criminal cases (Nos. 106, 107, and 108) filed against Pedrito Bondoc for falsification by omission, grave slander, and grave oral defamation. Warrants of arrest were issued against Bondoc on May 4, 1995, but the arresting officers could not find him. On May 5, 1995, respondent Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy issued an order of release for Bondoc, citing that he had posted bail. However, a certification from the MCTC Clerk of Court of Dapa dated May 11, 1995, stated that no bailbond had been filed by Bondoc as of that date. Complainant Adapon wrote a letter-complaint to Executive Judge Melchor M. Libarnes regarding the alleged irregular approval of the bailbond and issuance of the order of release. Respondent judge, in his reply, made an intemperate remark. Executive Judge Libarnes forwarded the complaint and the judge's reply to the Supreme Court. Procedural History: The Supreme Court referred the complaint to Judge Carlo Lozada of RTC Branch 30 for investigation. Complainant filed an amended complaint, averring that Bondoc was not arrested, did not surrender, and no bailbond had been filed when the order of release was issued. It was also alleged that the certification for property bond regarding realty taxes was issued only on May 12, 1995, after the order of release. Respondent judge, in his memorandum, claimed the order of release was regularly issued, stating Bondoc was detained in a private house and police doubted the warrants' validity. He also claimed the order was based on a Municipal Treasurer's certification of tax payments. Judge Lozada recommended absolution, explaining the bailbond was filed in another MCTC (Sta. Monica) and received by Dapa's Clerk of Court later, thus explaining the discrepancy. He concluded complainant failed to overcome the presumption of regularity. The Supreme Court then designated Judge Melchor Libarnes to investigate if Bondoc was arrested. Judge Libarnes' investigation revealed, based on police testimonies, that Bondoc was not arrested and the warrants were returned unserved. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent judge had no authority to issue the order of release under Sections 1 and 14(a), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. The OCA also noted respondent judge's previous indiscretion in Navarro v. Domagtoy, where he was suspended for gross misconduct, inefficiency, and gross ignorance of the law. The OCA recommended a fine of P10,000.00 with a warning. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's findings.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in issuing an order of release for an accused who was not under custody and had not posted bail. Whether respondent judge had the jurisdiction to grant bail and issue the order of release under the given circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. Respondent judge was ordered to pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority: The Court held that bail, by definition, is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. It is incongruous to grant bail to someone who is free. Testimonies of arresting officers and the report of Judge Libarnes confirmed that accused Bondoc was not arrested and did not surrender before the order of release was issued. Therefore, respondent judge's issuance of the order of release when Bondoc had never been arrested constituted gross ignorance of the law, and he gravely abused his discretion in issuing the order. The Court reiterated that judges must diligently ascertain and conscientiously apply the law to the facts of each case. On the issue of jurisdiction to grant bail: The Court ruled that even assuming bail could be granted, it was not within the jurisdiction of respondent judge to do so. Section 14(a), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that bail must be filed with the court where the case is pending, or with another branch of the same court within the province or city in the absence or unavailability of the judge. The criminal cases were pending before the MCTC of Dapa. The order of release should have been issued by that court, or by another MCTC within Surigao del Norte if Judge Comon of MCTC Dapa was absent or unavailable. There was no proof of Judge Comon's absence or unavailability. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Bondoc was arrested in the municipality of Sta. Monica-Burgos, which would have clothed respondent judge with authority to grant bail in the absence of an RTC judge. The fact that the alleged arrest was in Dapa, while the order of release was issued by respondent judge in his capacity as presiding judge of the 11th MCTC of Santa Monica-Burgos, made his order of release untenable. Thus, respondent judge granted bail and issued the order of release without jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in issuing an order of release when the accused has not been arrested and no bail has been filed. Furthermore, a judge may only grant bail if the case is pending before his court or if the conditions for filing bail in another court are met, as provided by Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.