A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289; August 1, 2000
JESUSA M. SANTIAGO, complainant, vs. JUDGE EDUARDO U. JOVELLANOS, MCTC Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan; ADORACION R. MARCOS, Clerk of Court, MCTC Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan; and CELESTINA B. CORPUZ, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, respondents. MARGARITA SANCHEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE EDUARDO U. JOVELLANOS, MCTC, Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jesusa M. Santiago, the private complainant in several criminal cases against Violeta Madera pending before the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, alleged that Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos of the MCTC of Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan, improperly issued orders for Madera’s release. Madera was arrested in Bulacan based on a bench warrant from the court there, but was released pursuant to an order dated April 3, 1996, issued by Judge Jovellanos—a judge from a different province and judicial region. Santiago questioned his authority to issue such an order for a case outside his territorial jurisdiction. Further irregularities were noted, including the pre-dating of the release order and the subsequent cancellation of the bail bond by Judge Jovellanos for non-registration, which delayed the transmission of records to the court of origin.
In a separate complaint, Margarita Sanchez alleged that Judge Jovellanos approved a bail bond for an accused charged with rape, an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, without conducting a hearing to determine the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. Clerk of Court Celestina Corpuz of the MTC of Urdaneta was implicated for notarizing the bail bond application despite the accused not appearing before her. The complaints were consolidated for resolution.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos and Clerk of Court Celestina Corpuz are administratively liable for their actions concerning the approval of bail and notarization of the bail bond application.

RULING

Yes, Judge Jovellanos and Clerk of Court Corpuz are administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that Judge Jovellanos violated procedural rules. While a judge may approve bail for an arrested person even if the case is pending in another court under Section 19 of Rule 114, this is permissible only when the judge having jurisdiction is unavailable. No such unavailability was shown; the judge in Bulacan was accessible. Judge Jovellanos thus improperly interfered with a case outside his jurisdiction. Furthermore, in the rape case, he gravely erred in approving bail without a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt was strong, which is mandatory for a capital offense. His claim of performing a ministerial duty was erroneous, as bail approval in such cases requires the exercise of judicial discretion after a hearing.
Clerk of Court Celestina Corpuz was liable for notarizing the bail bond application without the personal appearance of the accused, violating notarial rules and undermining the integrity of the document. The Court dismissed the complaint against Clerk of Court Adoracion Marcos, finding her actions merely ministerial in following Judge Jovellanos’s orders. Considering Judge Jovellanos’s advanced age and poor health, and Corpuz’s long service, the Court suspended Judge Jovellanos for one year without pay and Clerk Corpuz for four months without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.