G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845; October 5, 2011 (Formerly A.M. No. IPI No. 03-1831-RTJ)
Case Title: ATTY. FRANKLIN G. GACAL, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JAIME I. INFANTE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 38, IN ALABEL, SARANGANI, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Franklin G. Gacal, the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 1136-03 (People v. Faustino Ancheta) for Murder, charged respondent Judge Jaime I. Infante with gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and evident partiality. The charges stemmed from Judge Infante’s issuance of twin orders on April 23, 2003, which granted bail to the accused Faustino Ancheta and ordered his release, without conducting a hearing. The information for Murder was filed with a recommendation for bail in the amount of ₱400,000.00 by the public prosecutor. No petition for bail was filed by the accused. Atty. Gacal filed a “Very Urgent Motion For Reconsideration And/Or To Cancel Bailbond” on April 25, 2003. Judge Infante initially denied this motion on May 21, 2003, deeming it pro forma for lacking the public prosecutor’s conformity and noting the private prosecutor’s lack of authority. After Atty. Gacal was authorized to appear as private prosecutor, he moved for reconsideration of the bail grant. The public prosecutor filed a comment on June 4, 2003, stating his recommendation for bail was a waiver of the right to a hearing. Judge Infante definitively denied the motions on July 9, 2003. Atty. Gacal also moved for Judge Infante’s inhibition on June 20, 2003, citing gross incompetence for failing to resolve the bail issue. The administrative complaint was endorsed to the Supreme Court by the Office of the Ombudsman. In his comment, Judge Infante defended his actions, stating the orders merely approved the bailbond posted by the accused as recommended by the fiscal, and that no application for bail was filed, hence no hearing was required.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jaime I. Infante is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for granting bail in a murder case without conducting a hearing.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court held that it is a basic legal principle that bail cannot be allowed for a person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, without a hearing upon notice to the prosecution. The judge’s duty to conduct a hearing is mandatory and non-discretionary when the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. The recommendation of the public prosecutor for bail does not excuse the judge from this duty, as the determination of whether evidence of guilt is strong is a judicial function. By issuing the orders granting bail and releasing the accused without any hearing, Judge Infante exhibited gross ignorance of this fundamental rule. His defense that he merely “approved” the bailbond recommended by the prosecutor, as no petition for bail was filed, is untenable and highlights his ignorance of the proper procedure. The Court emphasized that ignorance of a basic, elementary, and well-known rule of law constitutes gross ignorance. Considering his previous administrative sanctions, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) with a stern warning. The Court also directed that a copy of the decision be furnished to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all trial judges.