G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1388; August 12, 2003
Felisa Taborite and Lucy T. Gallardo, Complainants, vs. Judge Manuel S. Sollesta, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Surallah, South Cotabato, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, the widow and sister of murder victim Bienvenido Taborite, charged respondent Judge Manuel S. Sollesta with oppression and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The case stemmed from Criminal Case No. 33982 for murder against Reynaldo Divino. After the accused’s arrest, he filed a petition for bail. Hearings were scheduled, but the public prosecutors did not receive proper notice. During the hearing on September 30, 1998, only the accused’s counsel and a police investigator appeared. Subsequently, respondent judge granted the petition for bail and set the bond at ₱50,000, leading to the accused’s release.
Respondent judge, in his comment, defended his action by asserting that the evidence against the accused was weak after several hearings. He also stated that he had forwarded the case records to the Provincial Prosecutor for the filing of the corresponding information after the bail was granted.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for granting bail in a murder case without providing the prosecution reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator. The legal procedure is unequivocal: under Section 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court must give the prosecutor reasonable notice of a bail hearing or require his recommendation, especially in offenses where bail is discretionary, such as murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The Court, citing Cortes vs. Catral, outlined the mandatory steps, which include notifying the prosecutor and conducting a hearing to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong.
In this case, the prosecution was deprived of the opportunity to oppose the bail application and present evidence because no proper notice was given to the public prosecutors. The judge’s discretion to grant bail must be exercised only after evaluating the prosecution’s evidence presented during a hearing. By granting bail without this requisite hearing, respondent judge acted with arbitrariness and gross ignorance of a fundamental and elementary rule. His failure to follow clear procedural guidelines warranted administrative sanction. The Court imposed a fine of ₱20,000.00 with a stern warning.