G.R. No. RTJ-92-845 September 3, 1993
Joey Cuaresma and Abraham Cuaresma, complainants, vs. Judge Restituto Aguilar, respondent.

FACTS

The Provincial Prosecutor of Occidental Mindoro charged Florencio Banite with murder in an Information carrying no bail recommendation, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2-648 in Branch 44 (Judge Venancio Tarriela) of the RTC of Mamburao. The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment. Subsequently, the Prosecutor amended the Information to Homicide and recommended a bail of P20,000.00 without prior court leave, prompting Judge Tarriela to require an explanation. On February 4, 1992, a staff member from the Prosecutor’s office approached respondent Judge Restituto Aguilar, Presiding Judge of Branch 45, RTC, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, with a request and prepared documents for the release of accused Banite on the recommended bail. Respondent judge signed the Orders approving the property bond and directing the release of the accused, resulting in Banite’s release. Complainants charged respondent judge with grave abuse of authority, alleging he had no jurisdiction to order the release since the case was pending in another branch and that the release endangered their lives. Respondent judge defended his action under Section 14(a), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court and invoked good faith.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority or neglect of duty in ordering the release on bail of an accused whose criminal case was pending in a different branch of the same court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found merit in the complaint. Respondent judge’s reliance on Section 14(a), Rule 114 was misplaced, as the provision allows filing bail with another branch only in the absence or unavailability of the judge where the case is pending. The record did not show that Judge Tarriela of Branch 44 was absent or unavailable at the time. Respondent judge had no power to act on the request. It was irregular for him to entertain the request without a formal motion from the accused and without examining the case records, which would have revealed that the original Murder Information with no bail recommendation had not been properly amended. His actions demonstrated a lack of familiarity with laws and procedures, undermining public confidence in the courts. Respondent Judge Restituto Aguilar was ordered to pay a fine of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) and was admonished to exercise greater care and prudence in his official duties.