Sinal Bantuas, Yusop Bantuas, Saidalai Bantuas, and Mono!a B. Mad"asi#, complainants, vs. Jud$% Yusop& '. (an$adapun and Jud$% Santos B. Adion$, respondents.
MART)N*+, J.: In a verified complaint dated October 17, 1995 1 Judge Yusoph K. angadapun, !egional "rial #ourt, $ranch 1%, &ara'i #it( in his capacit( as )cting residing Judge, !"#, $ranch 11, &alabang, *anao del +ur and Judge +antos $. )diong, !"#, $ranch ,, &ara'i #it( 'ere changed 'ith alleged gross misconduct relative to the granting of bail to the accused in #riminal #ase -o. 11./0% entitled 1eople vs. -i2on &acapado et. al.1 for &urder. "he complainants herein are relatives of the late $ohare $antuas, 'ho 'as shot to death allegedl( b( the accused in #riminal #ase -o. 11./0% filed before the sala of respondent Judge angadapun. $( virtue of the 'arrant of arrest issued against the accused in the above.mentioned case, accused -i2on &acapado 'as arrested and detained on )ugust 31, 1990. #omplainants allege that after the arrest of the accused the sub4ect criminal case 'as not heard and no notice of hearing nor subpoenas 'ere issued in connection there'ith. "he( claim that the acused 'as allo'ed to post bail 'ithout the benefit of a hearing in the amount of 0%,%%%.%% as fi2ed b( respondent 4udge Yusoph K. angadapun in his Order dated )pril 7, 1995 2 granting the 5rgent &otion to 6i2 $ail , filed b( accused7s counsel. "he( further asseverate that in order to rectif( his unprocedural and un4ustified act of fi2ing bail in a capital offense 'ithout a hearing, respondent Judge angadapun revo8ed and set aside the 9uestionable order above.cited b( issuing on Jul( 39, 1995 another order to that effect. 4 "he case 'as calendared for hearing t'ice, but nothing 'as done about the case because the accused had alread( been released on bail. #omplainants li8e'ise implicate respondent Judge )diong in this alleged anomalous granting of bail to the accused. )ccording to the complainants, Judge )diong ordered the release of accused -i2on &acapado on Jul( 1,, 1995 - on the basis of a defective propert( bond posted b( bondsman :ad4i &ohammad &angondacan. 5pon verification from the office of the !egister of ;eeds, complainants found out that the propert( bond 'hich 'as approved and accepted b( respondent Judge )diong, 'as not filed and dul( registered in accordance 'ith the prescribed form as there 'as no description of the area, no "#" number and no current assessed value of the real propert( involved. In addition, the propert( bond 'as not filed 'ith the !egister of ;eeds for proper annotation. #omplainants further discovered that the propert( 'as alread( sub4ect of and used as bond in #ivil #ase -o. !"#.393.9%, !egional "rial #ourt, $ranch 1%, &ara'i #it(, *anao del +ur. In his #omment dated &arch 10, 199<, . respondent Judge Yusoph K. angadapun admitted that he issued the Order dated )pril 7, 1995 granting the 5rgent &otion to 6i2 $ail filed b( accused -i2on &acapado through counsel 'ithout an( hearing, on the strength of the representation of rovincial rosecutor acaambung &acabando, 'ho allegedl( did not offer an( ob4ection in so far as -i2on &acapado 'as concerned. :e e2plained, ho'ever, that said order 'as timel( revo8ed b( another order 'hich he issued on Jul( 19, 1995, before the accused 'as actuall( released from detention on Jul( 39, 1995 as certified 7 b( #arum &amarinta &auna, =arden of the &ara'i #it( Jail 'here accused 'as detained. :e added that his revocator( order 'as made 'hile accused -i2on &acapado 'as still under detention at the #it( Jail, before the order of release of respondent Judge )diong on Jul( 3,, 1995 and also before the accused7s actual release on Jul( 39, 1995. !espondent Judge +antos $. )diong, in his #omment, 8 admitted to having acted on the bail bond papers of accused in his capacit( as >ice ?2ecutive Judge and in the absence of ?2ecutive Judge Yusoph K. angadapun 'ho 'as out of to'n at that time. :e claimed that, on the basis of the Order dated )pril 7, 1995 of Judge angadapun fi2ing the bail at 0%,%%%.%% and considering that the supporting papers presented to him appeared to be in order, he approved the bail bond in his Order dated Jul( 1,, 1995. 9
)fter'ards, he for'arded the bailbond papers to the !"#, $ranch 11, &alabang, *anao del +ur. "his #ourt has time and again reiterated that a hearing is mandator( before bail can be granted to an accused 'ho is charged 'ith a capital offense. 10 "he circumstances obtaining herein situate the case s9uarel( 'ithin the ambit of the aforementioned procedural re9uirement. )s clearl( established b( the facts of the case, accused -i2on &acapado 'as charged 'ith &urder 'hich is a capital offense. "his not'ithstanding, respondent Judge angadapun undertoo8 to dispense 'ith the re9uisite hearing on the basis of the non. ob4ection thereto of the rovincial rosecutor, in contravention of the rules and applicable 4urisprudence. "rue, the determination of the grant of bail is a matter of 4udicial discretion 'here the offense charged involves a capital offense. 11 :o'ever, the discretion of the court to grant bail in cases involving capital offenses lies not in the determination of 'hether or not a hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and evaluation of the 'eight of the prosecution7s evidence of guilt against the accused. 12 6urthermore, admission to bail as a matter of discretion presupposes the e2ercise thereof in accordance 'ith la' and guided b( the applicable legal principles. 1, )lthough the rovincial rosecutor had interposed no ob4ection to the grant of bail to the accused, respondent 4udge should have set the petition for bail for hearing. 14 If the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an ob4ection to the motion for bail, it is still mandator( for the court to conduct a hearing or as8 searching and clarificator( 9uestions. 1- 6or even the failure of the prosecution to interpose an ob4ection to the grant of bail to the accused 'ill not 4ustif( such grant 'ithout hearing. 1. !espondent Judge angadapun7s e2planation that his un'arranted and unprocedural grant of bail 'as timel( remedied b( his subse9uent issuance of an order revo8ing and setting aside the former cannot be countenanced. It is 'ell 'orth noting that the revocator( order 'as made onl( on Jul( 19, 1995 or three months after the initiall( erroneous order of )pril 7, 1995 'hich 'as sought to be corrected. "hat he reali@ed his fallacious granting of bail onl( after the lapse of three months is unfathomable. 6undamental 8no'ledge of the la' and a reasonable understanding of recent 4urisprudence ought to have guarded respondent 4udge against the precipitate and un4ustified granting of bail or should have at least prompted him to invalidate the same immediatel( thereafter. =hether the accused 'as still detained or not at the time the revocator( order 'as made is of no moment inasmuch as the administrative liabilit( of respondent Judge angadapun had alread( attached 'hen he granted bail to an accused charged 'ith a capital offense. -either 'ill the seemingl( conflicting claims of the parties 'ith respect to the date of respondent Judge )diong7s release order negate the aforesaid culpabilit( of respondent Judge angadapun. )s found b( the Office of the #ourt )dministrator AO#)B, in its &emorandum dated June 3%, 199<, 17 1Judge angadapun7s action sho's lac8 of familiarit( 'ith the la' and recent 4urisprudence 'hich undermines the public7s confidence in the integrit( of the courts.1 18 "o grant an application for bail and fi2 the amount thereof 'ithout a hearing dul( called for the purpose of determining 'hether the evidence of guilt is strong constitutes ignorance or incompetence 'hose grossness cannot be e2cused b( a claim of good faith or e2cusable negligence. 19 6urthermore, the #ourt has held that the failure of the 4udge to conduct the hearing re9uired prior to the grant of bail in capital offenses is ine2cusable and reflects gross ignorance of the la' and a cavalier disregard of its re9uirement. 20 "he e2planation of respondent Judge )diong is li8e'ise dubious and unavailing. :is act of approving the bail bond papers of the accused, 'ithout verif(ing pertinent records 'hen he had ever( opportunit( and reasonable time to do so, can be characteri@ed as negligent and imprudent. :ad he thoroughl( e2amined the order of his co.respondent Judge angadapun granting the accused7s &otion for $ail, he 'ould have noticed that the motion 'as approved 'ithout the re9uired hearing. *i8e'ise, he should have ta8en account of the fact that the same did not contain a summar( of prosecutorial evidence. )n order granting or refusing bail must contain a summar( of the evidence offered b( the prosecution. 21 +ince the order had no recital of an( evidence presented b( the prosecution nor a pronouncement that the evidence of guilt of the accused 'as not strong, hence, the said order should not be sustained or given an( semblance of validit(. 22 5nfortunatel(, he carelessl( disregarded the manifest irregularit( contained therein and failed to reali@e that the bail bond should not have been approved in the first place. Indubitabl(, respondent 4udge sho'ed poor 4udgment and gross ignorance of basic legal principles. 2, !espondent 4udge )diong also did not contravene the allegation that the supporting papers far the bail bond 'ere defective considering that the same 'ere not in the prescribed form. -either did he refute the allegation that the propert( offered 'as also being used as bond in another case. ) 4udge cannot approve a bail band and order the release of an accused 'ithout the submission of a valid bail bond. 24 )ccordingl(, 'e find he respondent 4udges administrativel( liable for Ignorance of the *a' relative to their actuations in the granting of bail to the accused in #riminal #ase -o. 11./0%, !"#, $ranch 11, &alabang, *anao del -orte. In vie' of the foregoing, Judge Yusoph K. angadapun of !"#, $ranch 1% &ara'i #it( and Judge +antos $. )diong of !"#, $ranch ,, &ara'i #it( are hereb( ordered to pa( a 6I-? of "=?-"Y ":O5+)-; ?+O+ A3%,%%%.%%B each for ignorance of the *a'. +O O!;?!?;. Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur. ellosillo and Panganiban, JJ., too! no part.