A.M. No. 378-MJ October 24, 1975
Felizardo Soriano, complainant, vs. Judge Alfredo C. Mabbayad, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Felizardo Soriano, brother of the deceased Pablo Soriano, charged respondent Municipal Judge Alfredo C. Mabbayad of Roxas, Isabela, with grave abuse of discretion, gross incompetence, and inefficiency. The charge stemmed from the judge’s handling of a murder case (Criminal Case No. 1072) against Melencio Aban for the killing of Pablo Soriano on May 5, 1970. After a preliminary investigation, respondent issued a warrant of arrest on June 18, 1970, setting bail at P12,000. Subsequently, upon the accused’s motion endorsed by the prosecuting officer, respondent reduced the bail to P6,000 on July 1, 1970, and ordered the accused’s release on July 7.
However, upon a motion by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal dated July 21, 1970, which highlighted that the information charged a capital offense, respondent increased the bail to P20,000 and ordered the accused’s re-arrest. The accused was never re-arrested. The records further reveal that respondent failed to transmit the case records to the Court of First Instance for over four years, which would have allowed a warrant to be served nationwide, hindering the accused’s apprehension.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alfredo C. Mabbayad is administratively liable for grave abuse of discretion, gross incompetence, and inefficiency in his handling of the murder case, particularly concerning the fixing and reduction of bail and the failure to transmit records.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion and gross incompetence. In originally fixing bail at P12,000 for a murder charge qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, respondent disregarded Department of Justice Circulars Nos. 47 and 48, which mandated that no bail be granted for capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. The sworn statements of the accused and witnesses constituted strong evidence, making the offense non-bailable. His subsequent reduction of bail to a “ridiculous” P6,000, upon a mere motion, was a positive arbitrary act that enabled the accused to flee, evading justice for over five years.
Compounding this error was respondent’s failure for over four years to transmit the records to the Court of First Instance, preventing the issuance of a nationwide arrest warrant. This inefficiency and inaction, bordering on malicious misfeasance and nonfeasance, denied the State and the victim’s heirs justice. The Court emphasized that such conduct seriously affects public interest in the administration of justice. The complainant’s subsequent motion to withdraw the complaint did not justify dismissal, as the matter involved public interest. Consequently, respondent was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all privileges.