A.M. No. RTJ-99-1473. February 16, 2000.
Jessica Goodman, complainant, vs. Judge Loreto D. de la Victoria, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 06, Cebu City, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from respondent judge’s handling of a bail application in a murder case. Mayor Marcelo Abrenica and Adriano Cabantugan, accused of murdering Jerome Goodman, filed a petition for bail. After two judges inhibited themselves, the case was assigned to respondent Judge Loreto D. de la Victoria. He set the petition for hearing and sent notices to the Office of the Ombudsman and to the private complainant’s counsel, Atty. Cornelio Mercado.
During the hearing, respondent judge refused to allow Atty. Mercado to participate, declaring him “without standing” for lacking authorization from the public prosecutor. After a brief inquiry focusing on procedural matters like the receipt of subpoena and the ongoing Ombudsman investigation, and noting the non-appearance of the public prosecutor, the judge granted bail. Complainant Jessica Goodman alleged that this act constituted abuse of authority, oppressive conduct, and gross ignorance of the law for depriving her of her day in court and for granting bail without a proper hearing on the strength of the evidence of guilt.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his conduct in granting the application for bail.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is liable for serious misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that in applications for bail where the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, bail is a matter of discretion and not a right. The judge must conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This hearing is mandatory and requires the judge to summarize the prosecution’s evidence and formulate an independent conclusion. The prosecution’s failure to appear does not justify dispensing with this hearing.
The Court ruled that the “brief inquiry” conducted by respondent judge did not constitute the hearing required by law. It did not elicit or assess the weight of the prosecution’s evidence. By granting bail based merely on the absence of the prosecutor and the presumption of innocence, without any judicial determination of the evidence’s strength, respondent judge acted arbitrarily. This failure to comply with a clear procedural rule designed to protect the State’s interest and the rights of victims amounts to serious misconduct. Since respondent had already retired, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.