Myline Cordial

P/Sr. Supt. Orlando Mabutas, Regional Director, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Metro Mania Regional Office vs. Judge Norma C. Perello, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 276, Munitinlupa City
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1817, June 8, 2005

459 SCRA 369

FACTS:

P/Sr. Supt. Mabutas complained of irregularities committed by respondent Judge Perello in the grant of bail to accused Aiza Chona Omadan who was charged in an Information with Violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the possession, custody and control of 57.78 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), with no bail recommended. The arraignment and petition for bail was heard on the same day and it was granted.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the granting of bail was proper.

RULING:

Yes. Under Sec. 11 of R.A No. 9165 possession of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is punishable by life imprisonment to death; hence, a capital offense. As such, bail becomes a matter of discretion. When a bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing must be conducted. The respondent judge has conducted a hearing on the petition for bail and based her findings on the evidence presented by the prosecution. Her Order granting the accused’s petition for bail contained a summary of the prosecution’s evidence to which she based her findings and concluded that accused Omadan’s guilt is not strong. Respondent Judge did not violate procedural requirements. The Court did not find any irregularity in the grant of bail in said criminal case that would render respondent Judge administratively liable.

City Prosecutor Edward M. Togononon vs. Judge Norma Perello
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1820, June 8, 2005

FACTS:
Respondent Judge was accused of partiality, serious misconduct in office and gross ignorance of the law, concerning the latter’s grant of bail in four criminal cases for Violations of R.A. No. 9165 pending before her. Judge Perello did not conduct any hearings on the motions/petitions for bail filed in the criminal cases subject of the complaint because the crimes charged are not capital offenses as the quantity of shabu involved therein was minimal. Criminal Case Nos. 03-065, 03-082, and 03-288 all involve selling of less than 5 grams of shabu. Respondent Judge believes that under R.A. No. 9165, shabu is not a dangerous drug but merely a controlled precursor, in which the selling of less than 5 grams is punishable only with imprisonment of 12 years to 20 years. She believes that bail is a matter of right and a hearing is not required.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not hearing should be conducted in granting the motion for bail.
2. Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

RULING:

1. YES. Respondent judge erred in granting bail to the accused in Crim. Case No. 03-065, Crim. Case No. 03-082, and Crim. Case No. 03-288 without hearing because the crime charge carries with it capital penalty.

Her belief that shabu is merely a precursor and therefore the sale thereof is not a capital offense is erroneous. A plain reading of R.A. No. 9165 show that methamphetamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drug and not a controlled precursor. R.A. No. 9165 reveals that methamphetamine is not one of those listed as controlled precursor or essential chemical. Given that methamphetamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drug, the applicable provision is Section 5, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165 which provides that regardless of quantity, the sale, trade, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of shabu is punishable by life imprisonment to death. Being a capital offense, it is incumbent upon respondent Judge to hold a hearing on the petitions/motions for bail filed by the accused therein to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong.

2. YES. Granting an application for bail and fixing the amount thereof without a hearing duly called for the purpose of determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong constitutes gross ignorance or incompetence. Such gross ignorance of law is in violation of Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law. Such grossness cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable negligence. Even if a judge acted in good faith but his ignorance is so gross, he should be held administratively liable.

NOTES:

Procedural Requirements for Granting or Denying Bail
The matter of determining whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion that remains with the judge. Such discretion must be sound and exercised within reasonable bounds.
Under the present rules, a hearing on an application for bail is mandatory. Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, the prosecutor should be given reasonable notice of hearing, or at least his recommendation on the matter must be sought. In case an application for bail is filed, the judge is entrusted to observe the following duties:
1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation;
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion;
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; and
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. Otherwise the bail should be denied.

Based on the above-cited procedure and requirements, after the hearing, the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. A summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a text or statement. Based on the summary of evidence, the judge formulates his own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused.

Gross Ignorance of the Law is Classified as a Serious Charge
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, which took effect on October 1, 2001, gross ignorance of the law is classified as a serious charge and is now punishable with severe sanctions, to wit:
Sec. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

Full Text: Mabutas vs Perello A.M. No. RTJ-03-1817, June 8, 2005