A.M. No. 1527-MJ May 13, 1981
Angel Ibabao, Jr., complainant, vs. Hon. David E. Villa, Municipal Judge of Tantangan, South Cotabato, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Angel Ibabao, Jr. charged Municipal Judge David E. Villa with various administrative offenses. The charges stemmed from cases filed against complainant’s brother, Meinardo Ibabao, following a vehicular accident on December 26, 1976. For a case of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence, Judge Villa set bail at P10,000.00 cash. For a separate case of driving without a license, he set bail at P500.00. The complainant alleged these amounts were excessive. Furthermore, when the bail for the frustrated homicide case was posted, Judge Villa requested and received P130.00 for notarial services and documentary stamps without issuing a receipt.
In his comment, Judge Villa denied any impropriety. He defended the bail amounts as reasonable, citing the seriousness of the charges based on medical certificates indicating the victim’s injuries required 60 to 120 days to heal. He admitted receiving payment for notarial services related to the bail bond, which he performed in his capacity as an Ex-Officio Notary Public, asserting the fee was reasonable.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge David E. Villa is administratively liable for (1) fixing excessive bail bonds and (2) improperly receiving payment for notarial services in relation to an official court matter.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that the bail bonds fixed were manifestly excessive. For frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium. The medium period translates to imprisonment of only one year, seven months, and eleven days to two years, ten months, and twenty days. A P10,000.00 cash bond for this penalty is disproportionate and excessive. Similarly, for the charge of driving without a license, which carried a maximum penalty of a P300.00 fine, a P500.00 bail bond was also excessive.
Regarding the notarial fee, the Court ruled that Judge Villa acted improperly in receiving P130.00 for preparing and notarizing the bail bond. The transaction arose from his official function, and the accused’s request for the judge to prepare the bond created an expectation of favorable action, compromising judicial propriety. While performed as a notarial act, the context made the receipt of payment improper. Consequently, the Court found Judge Villa guilty of the charges and imposed a fine equivalent to three months’ salary with a stern warning.