AM MTJ 01 1384; (April, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1384. April 11, 2002. Rasmia U. Tabao, complainant, vs. Acting Presiding Judge Acmad T. Barataman, MTCC, Branch 1, Marawi City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rasmia Tabao, the private complainant in a criminal case for abandonment of a minor, charged respondent Judge Acmad Barataman with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. The judge issued an order granting a motion for bail on recognizance filed by the accused’s father pursuant to R.A. No. 6036 . The prosecution’s motion to cancel bail, arguing the accused was a CPA who could afford a cash bond, was denied by the judge, who stated the law on recognizance does not distinguish between rich and poor accused.
The complainant averred the grant of bail was improper because the motion was filed by the accused’s father, not the accused; the prosecutor was not furnished a copy and no hearing was held; the required sworn statement was not executed by the accused; and the accused was not indigent. In his comment, the respondent judge argued the case fell under the Rules on Summary Procedure, allowing immediate arraignment without bail, and that the accused’s father qualified as a responsible custodian.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Acmad Barataman is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law in granting the motion for bail on recognizance.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Court, agreeing with the Office of the Court Administrator, found two clear violations. First, the judge violated R.A. No. 6036 , which allows release on recognizance for offenses with penalties not exceeding six months imprisonment/fine of P2,000, provided the accused personally signs a sworn statement binding himself to report periodically. Here, the sworn statement was signed by the accused’s father, not the accused. Furthermore, the law requires the accused to establish inability to post bond, a condition not met by a CPA engaged in business. The judge’s claim that the law does not distinguish between rich and poor is erroneous.
Second, the judge violated a basic tenet of criminal procedure by granting bail before the court acquired jurisdiction over the accused, who was still at large. Bail is intended to obtain provisional liberty for one in custody of the law; it cannot be granted to someone already free. Granting bail under these circumstances constitutes gross ignorance of elementary law. While judges enjoy immunity for erroneous judgments, they are not exempt from disciplinary action for wanton misuse of power or ignorance of fundamental legal principles. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00 with a stern warning.