A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335. March 5, 1997. INOCENCIO BASCO, complainant, vs. JUDGE LEO M. RAPATALO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Agoo, La Union, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Inocencio Basco, father of a murder victim, charged respondent Judge Leo M. Rapatalo with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail to the accused, Roger Morente, in a murder case without conducting a hearing. The petition for bail was set for hearing multiple times but was never actually heard due to resettings, the judge’s leave, and the non-notification of prosecution witnesses. Despite this, complainant discovered the accused was released on bail based on a June 29, 1995 release order. This order was issued pursuant to a marginal note by an Assistant Prosecutor on the bail petition stating “No objection: P80,000.00,” which the judge approved. A subsequent hearing for the petition was still scheduled for July 17, 1995, after the release had been effected.
In his comment, respondent judge defended his action, stating he granted bail based on the prosecutor’s lack of opposition and recommendation. He argued he had the discretion to approve the petition when unopposed, presuming the prosecutor was familiar with the case. He noted the bail was later cancelled and a warrant issued upon complainant’s motion for reconsideration, which the prosecutor approved, and the accused was subsequently detained.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for granting bail in a murder case without conducting a hearing to determine the strength of the evidence of guilt.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court ruled that bail is not a matter of right when the accused is charged with a capital offense like murder, punishable by reclusion perpetua. In such cases, the court can only exercise its discretion to grant bail after a hearing is conducted to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This hearing is mandatory, and the prosecution must be given the opportunity to present evidence. The judge’s discretion is not absolute; it must be sound, guided by law, and exercised only after evidence is submitted.
The Court found that while the judge set the application for hearing, no actual hearing was ever conducted. Granting bail based solely on the prosecutor’s marginal note, without receiving evidence, constituted a failure to perform a mandatory duty. The subsequent cancellation of the bail bond did not absolve the judge of this lapse. However, considering the lack of malice and the eventual rectification, the penalty was mitigated. The Court REPRIMANDED Judge Rapatalo with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.