A.M. No. RTJ-93-936 September 10, 1993
Albina Borinaga, complainant, vs. Judge Camilo E. Tamin, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Albina Borinaga charged respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin with grave incompetence and ignorance of the law concerning Criminal Case No. 92-10-300 for murder (People vs. Antonio Ruaya, et al.), pending before his court. An amended criminal complaint for the murder of complainant’s husband was filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for preliminary investigation. While the case was pending in the MCTC, accused Antonio Ruaya filed a petition for bail before respondent judge’s court, docketed as Special Civil Case No. 92-50,005. Respondent judge ordered the public prosecutor to appear on March 30, 1992, to present evidence that the guilt of the accused was strong. The prosecutor failed to appear. On March 30, 1992, respondent judge issued an order granting bail to Ruaya in the amount of P20,000.00, reasoning that since the prosecution presented no evidence of strong guilt, the accused was entitled to bail under the Constitution. On the same day, the MCTC judge issued a resolution recommending the filing of an information for murder against Ruaya, with no bail recommended. The public prosecutor and complainant’s counsel later filed a motion to cancel the bail bond and arrest the accused, which respondent judge denied without a hearing. Respondent judge, in his comment, justified his actions by stating the prosecution failed to appear despite notice, the evidence against Ruaya was weak (based solely on an extrajudicial statement of a co-accused), and he had adopted a local standard for bail amounts.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin is administratively liable for grave incompetence and ignorance of the law for granting bail to an accused charged with murder without a hearing and at a time when the criminal case was not yet within his court’s jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court ruled that a judge may only grant bail in a capital offense after a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. Respondent judge erred in granting bail based solely on the prosecution’s non-appearance, which deprived the prosecution of due process. Furthermore, respondent judge had no authority to act on the petition for bail at the time it was filed because the criminal case for murder was still under preliminary investigation in the MCTC and had not yet been filed in his court; jurisdiction over the petition for bail is ancillary to the main criminal case. By granting bail without jurisdiction and without a proper hearing, respondent judge exhibited a lack of familiarity with fundamental legal principles. The Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00 on respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin, with a warning that a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.