Myline Cordial

Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo vs. Executive Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan, RTC, Branch 46, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

A.M. No. RTJ-03-1751, June 10, 2003

403 SCRA 381

Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo of the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) charged Executive Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan of the RTC of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro (Branch 46) with Gross Ignorance of the Law relative to Criminal Case No. R-5075 for Estafa, entitled People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto M. Peñaflorida.

FACTS:

The respondent, Executive Judge Pagayatan allowed the release of Peñaflorida, who is charged with large scale estafa without conducting a hearing. Peñaflorida had been subject of a Summary Deportation Order and was an alien federal fugitive for health care fraud in the U.S.
On arraignment respondent judge denied the P40,000.00 bail recommended by the Provincial Prosecutor for the provisional release of the accused on the ground that the crime Peñaflorida was charged with involved large scale estafa, a non-bailable offense.
A day after the arraignment for criminal case for estafa handled by Judge Pagayatan, Peñaflorida filed an urgent motion to fix bail. The prosecution and the defense jointly manifested that it would be fair and just if the court would fix the bail bond for the provisional release of the accused Peñaflorida at P250,000.00. He then granted the motion to fix bail and issued the Order fixing the bail bond of the accused at P250,000.00.

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)’s decision: The judge be fined P5,000.00 for Gross Ignorance of the Law for acting with undue haste in issuing the order granting bail without hearing. She based her decision on the lack of readiness on the part of the prosecution to present any witness to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused was strong.

ISSUES:

1. Is hearing required before granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion?
2. Could the failure of the prosecutor to present evidence against the accused be a basis for the outright grant of bail without a preliminary hearing on the matter ?
3. Is the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law?

RULING:

1. YES. Under the rules on bail, a hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion. A hearing is indispensable for the court to ask searching questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it, against the accused, in cases where the offense is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. After hearing, the courts order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution and based thereon, the judge should then formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong enough as to indicate the guilt of the accused. Otherwise, the order granting or denying the application for bail may be invalidated because the summary of evidence for the prosecution which contains the judges evaluation of the evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense.

2. NO. A hearing is required even when the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail. In this case, the respondent judge granted bail to the accused Peñaflorida without conducting a hearing despite his earlier pronouncement in the Order dated November 19, 2001 denying bail as he considered the crime the accused Peñaflorida was charged with to be a non-bailable offense. The manifestation of the prosecutor that he is not ready to present any witness to prove that the prosecutions evidence against the accused is strong, is never a basis for the outright grant of bail without a preliminary hearing on the matter. Moreover, the joint manifestation of the prosecution and the defense that it would be fair and just if the court would fix the bail bond for the provisional release of the accused at P250,000.00 does not justify the granting of bail without a hearing in a case involving a non-bailable offense. A hearing is necessary for the court to take into consideration the guidelines in fixing the amount of bail set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:

SEC. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. – The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to the following factors:

(a) Financial liability of the accused to give bail;

(b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;

(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;

(e) Age and health of the accused;

(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;

(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;

(h) Forfeiture of other bail;

(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and

(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required.

3. YES. The Court found respondent Executive Judge guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law. It is basic and fundamental to conduct a hearing in connection with the grant of bail that it would amount to judicial apostasy for any member of the judiciary to disclaim knowledge or awareness thereof. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, respondent owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law. When a judge displays utter lack of familiarity with the basic rules of law, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. Ignorance of the law excuses no one — certainly not a judge.

Full text: Domingo vs Pagayatan A.M. No. RTJ-03-1751. June 10, 2003