Tanog v. Balindong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 5, 2004, Cabib Tanog, Jr. was shot and killed inside a canteen. Gapo Sidic was apprehended on the same day. A complaint for murder was filed against Sidic and others. The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information for murder. Sidic was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Sidic filed a motion to fix bail, claiming the evidence of guilt was not strong. After the prosecution presented witnesses, the RTC considered the bail hearing terminated and set Sidic's counter-evidence presentation. Due to the death of the presiding judge and subsequent re-raffling of the case, Sidic filed an urgent motion for special raffle due to his prolonged detention. Procedural History: The case records were transmitted to RTC, Branch 8, presided by respondent Judge Balindong. On February 11, 2009, Judge Balindong granted Sidic's motion to fix bail at ₱30,000.00, finding the evidence of guilt not strong as the witnesses did not see the actual shooting. An order for Sidic's release was issued on February 13, 2009, after posting bail. The prosecution filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration to cancel the bond and for inhibition. On March 2, 2009, Judge Balindong denied the motion for reconsideration, upheld the bail order, and inhibited himself from further action on the case out of 'delicadeza,' forwarding the records for appropriate action. The Petition: Petitioner Cabib Alonto Tanog filed a petition for certiorari, assailing Judge Balindong's orders granting bail and fixing the amount, alleging grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner also claimed Judge Balindong should have inhibited himself due to alleged relationship with the accused within the prohibited degree.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed on the ground that the case has become moot and academic. Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. Whether respondent Judge Balindong committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting Sidic's motion to fix bail. Whether respondent Judge Balindong committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the amount of bail at ₱30,000.00. Whether respondent Judge Balindong should have inhibited himself from the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the case had become moot and academic due to the final conviction of Sidic for murder. Furthermore, the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court, as the petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy without justifiable exceptions. Even on the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Balindong in granting bail or in fixing its amount, nor was there sufficient basis for mandatory inhibition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Court ruled that the petition had become moot and academic because, during its pendency, Sidic was convicted of murder by the RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan City, on January 20, 2015. This conviction attained finality on March 26, 2015. Since Sidic was convicted of a capital offense, his incarceration was warranted, rendering any resolution on the propriety of the challenged orders regarding his provisional release of no practical legal effect or value. The Court reiterated the principle that it generally declines jurisdiction over moot cases as there is no substantial relief that can be granted. On the issue of judicial hierarchy: The Court pointed out that the petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) pursuant to the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. While the Supreme Court, CA, and RTCs have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, the petitioner must file with the lowest court in the hierarchy unless there are special and important reasons, such as those dictated by public welfare, the broader interests of justice, or compelling circumstances. The petitioner failed to provide any explanation or justification for bypassing the CA, thus warranting dismissal on this procedural ground. On the grant of the motion to fix bail: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Balindong in granting Sidic's motion to fix bail. The right to bail is a matter of discretion when the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, and bail is denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. Judge Balindong conducted a hearing and evaluated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, concluding that none of them witnessed the actual shooting of the victim. The testimonies presented did not conclusively establish Sidic's direct involvement, leading the judge to determine that the evidence of guilt was not strong. The Court emphasized that the trial judge's determination of the weight of evidence for bail purposes does not equate to a trial on the merits. On the amount of bail: The Court also held that Judge Balindong did not commit grave abuse of discretion in setting the bail at ₱30,000.00. In fixing bail, judges consider factors such as the accused's financial ability, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the penalty, character, age, health, weight of evidence, probability of appearance, and other relevant circumstances. Judge Balindong enumerated his reasons, including Sidic's four-year incarceration, his character and reputation as a former Councilor, his financial ability, and the weak evidence against him. While the DOJ Bail Bond Guide might recommend no bail for murder, it is not binding on courts, and judges have discretion to set an amount they deem appropriate based on the enumerated factors. On the non-inhibition of Judge Balindong: The Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that Judge Balindong was related to Sidic within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, which would mandate inhibition under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner's allegations were described as 'allegedly' and 'bare claims' supported by an affidavit of a third party that was not presented before the RTC. The use of 'allegedly' indicated the petitioner's own uncertainty. The Court noted that Judge Balindong did inhibit himself from further action out of 'delicadeza,' but this subsequent inhibition did not retroactively validate the claim of mandatory disqualification. The Court suggested that an administrative case would have been a more appropriate venue to address alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will be dismissed if the case has become moot and academic due to supervening events, such as the final conviction of the accused. Furthermore, failure to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy by filing directly with the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals, without justifiable exceptions, warrants dismissal. Allegations of grave abuse of discretion must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, and mere unsubstantiated claims of relationship for disqualification of a judge are insufficient.