AM MTJ 00 1320; (November, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320. November 22, 2000. ANTONIO M. BANGAYAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE JIMMY R. BUTACAN, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Antonio M. Bangayan filed grave threats charges (Criminal Case Nos. 5944 and 5945) against Antonio Cauilan, Sr. and Antonio Cauilan, Jr. before respondent Judge Jimmy R. Butacan’s court. The judge issued warrants with bail set at ₱24,000 each. Antonio Cauilan, Sr. was arrested on April 29, 1999, and Antonio Cauilan, Jr. was apprehended on April 30, 1999; both were ordered released on April 30. Complainant alleged that the judge approved the release of Cauilan, Jr. without the required bond, which was only posted later on May 11 after a motion for bail reduction was granted. He also charged that the motion for bail reduction was approved immediately without giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose.
Respondent judge denied the allegations. He claimed the warrants for Cauilan, Sr. were served on different dates and that bail was properly posted for each case separately. He asserted that Cauilan, Jr. was not arrested but voluntarily surrendered on May 11, and his motion for bail reduction was properly granted. Complainant rebutted these claims with a certification from the arresting officer confirming the simultaneous service of both warrants on Cauilan, Sr. on April 29 and a police report indicating Cauilan, Jr.’s arrest in April.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Jimmy R. Butacan is administratively liable for gross misconduct and grave abuse of discretion in handling the arrest and release of the accused and in granting a motion for bail reduction.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct. The legal logic rests on his violation of procedural rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct. First, regarding Antonio Cauilan, Sr., evidence from the arresting officer established that both warrants were served simultaneously on April 29, 1999. The judge, however, ordered his release in Criminal Case No. 5945 without any bail having been posted, a clear breach of the rules requiring bail for release. Second, for Antonio Cauilan, Jr., records showed an order of release dated April 30, 1999, contradicting the judge’s claim of a voluntary surrender on May 11. More critically, the judge granted the motion for bail reduction on the very day it was filed, without a hearing and without notifying the prosecution to oppose it, violating Rule 15, §4 and Rule 114, §18 of the Rules of Court, which mandate a hearing for such motions.
These acts constituted gross misconduct and a failure to maintain professional competence under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge’s attempts to justify his actions were found to be in bad faith, indicating an effort to cover up procedural lapses. The Court imposed a fine of ₱10,000.00 with a warning, emphasizing that such violations undermine judicial integrity and the proper administration of justice.