A.M. OCA No. 03-1800-RTJ ; November 26, 2004
CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ALEJANDRINO C. CABEBE, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte, respondent.

FACTS

Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alejandrino C. Cabebe for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross ignorance of the law, and partiality. The complaint stemmed from Criminal Case No. 3950-18 for illegal possession of prohibited drugs. On November 5, 2002, respondent judge issued an order granting bail to all accused, fixing the amounts without any prior application or motion for bail from the accused. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration. Instead of acting on it, the judge issued an order inhibiting himself from the case, realizing the irregularity of his action.
In his comment, respondent judge admitted issuing the bail order without a hearing but justified it based on the accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. He cited delays caused by the prosecution’s frequent absences and witness non-appearances. He argued the administrative complaint was harassment and an improper remedy to question an alleged erroneous order. Respondent judge compulsorily retired on March 26, 2003.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for granting bail to the accused without conducting a hearing.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that a hearing is mandatory for granting bail, whether it is a matter of right or discretion, especially for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. This procedure is explicitly required under Sections 8 and 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The hearing is crucial for the judge to exercise sound discretion by determining whether the prosecution’s evidence of guilt is strong.
The Court, citing Cortes vs. Catral, outlined the judge’s duties: notify the prosecutor, conduct a hearing where bail is discretionary, decide based on a summary of evidence, and issue an order containing that summary. By granting bail motu proprio without any hearing or notice to the prosecution, respondent judge violated these clear procedural rules. His claim of upholding the right to a speedy trial does not excuse this violation, as the proper remedy for trial delay is a motion to dismiss, not a grant of bail without due process.
The Court found respondent guilty of a less serious charge for violation of Supreme Court rules under Rule 140. Considering his compulsory retirement, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.