G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-93-1097. August 12, 1994.
REGIONAL STATE PROSECUTOR FRANCISCO Q. AURILLO, JR., complainant, vs. Judges GETULIO M. FRANCISCO, Branch 6, and PEDRO S. ESPINA, Branch 7, both of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, respondents.

FACTS

Regional State Prosecutor Francisco Q. Aurillo, Jr. filed a sworn complaint against Judges Getulio M. Francisco and Pedro S. Espina of the RTC of Tacloban City. The complaint alleged grave misconduct, impropriety, and grave abuse of authority for granting bail to the accused in Criminal Case No. 93-01-38 (for Murder) and Criminal Case No. 93-01-39 (for Parricide) without conducting an evidentiary hearing, despite the prosecution’s opposition and recommendation of no bail due to the capital nature of the offenses. Complainant asserted there was strong evidence of guilt. Additionally, complainant accused Judge Espina of openly fraternizing with practitioners of a local law firm, creating a negative perception of his impartiality, and of favoring the accused in Criminal Case No. 93-04-197 (for violation of R.A. No. 6425 ) by allowing bail without giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose.
The records showed that the two criminal cases were initially assigned to Judge Francisco’s sala. On February 17, 1993, Judge Francisco issued warrants of arrest but fixed bail at P100,000.00 for each accused, despite the prosecution’s earlier recommendation of no bail. Complainant questioned this, arguing that granting bail without a hearing violated procedural due process. The prosecution later moved for Judge Francisco’s inhibition, leading to a re-raffle of the cases to Judge Espina’s sala, despite complainant’s objection based on alleged bias.
Judge Francisco, in his comment, explained that upon personal examination of the records, he believed the prosecution’s evidence was merely circumstantial and not strong, thus justifying bail. He claimed discretion to fix bail in the warrants and argued that since no formal application for bail was filed by the accused, no hearing or notice to the prosecution was required. Judge Espina, in his comment, stated he merely took over the cases after the bails had been approved by Judge Francisco and did not comment on the Padernal case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judges committed grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law in granting bail in capital offenses without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without giving the prosecution an opportunity to be heard.

RULING

The Court found Judge Getulio M. Francisco guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized that under Sections 5 and 15, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, in applications for bail for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death, the prosecution must be given reasonable notice and an opportunity to prove that evidence of guilt is strong. A hearing is indispensable to determine the strength of the evidence, and the court’s discretion must be exercised based on a summary of the evidence presented. Judge Francisco’s act of granting bail based solely on his review of the affidavits attached to the information—which are only for determining probable cause for arrest—and without a hearing, constituted a patent disregard of established rules and procedural due process. This error was not mere deficiency in judgment but gross ignorance of the law. The Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00 on Judge Francisco with a stern warning.
As to Judge Pedro S. Espina, the Court found no sufficient evidence to hold him liable for the grant of bail in the murder and parricide cases, as he merely inherited the cases after Judge Francisco’s orders. However, he was ordered to issue new warrants of arrest for the accused who had been released on bail and to immediately conduct a hearing to determine the propriety of granting bail. The charges regarding fraternization with a law firm and the handling of the Padernal case were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, but Judge Espina was admonished to be more circumspect and prudent in his dealings to avoid any suspicion of partiality.