A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431. May 9, 2003. SPO2 JOSE B. YAP, complainant, vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR., respondent.
FACTS

SPO2 Jose B. Yap filed an administrative complaint against Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. for grave abuse of authority and acts unbecoming a judge. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s handling of the release of an accused, Antonio Laurente, Jr., who was arrested on a Saturday, March 6, 1999. Complainant alleged that respondent judge issued two Orders of Release on that same date, one based on a cash bond and another on a property bond. However, the cash bond’s official receipt was dated March 8, and the property bond was only subscribed on March 10. Complainant asserted the judge prematurely ordered the release before the bonds were validly posted and highlighted that the accused was a relative of the judge’s wife. Respondent judge denied any irregularity, explaining that the cash bond was presented to him on March 6, and he signed the first release order prepared by his clerk. He claimed the receipt’s date was later altered by the clerk. He further stated he approved a substitute property bond later that same day upon the accused’s father’s plea, to facilitate the return of the cash.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his actions in issuing the release orders and handling the bail bonds.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of Gross Misconduct. The Court disagreed with the investigating judge’s recommendation to dismiss the charges. While it accepted that a cash bond was likely posted on March 6, the judge’s conduct in approving a property bond on the same day was highly irregular. The property bond was not accompanied by the required supporting documents, such as a certificate of title and tax declaration, at the time of approval. More critically, respondent judge failed to ensure compliance with Section 11, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that within ten days, the accused must cause the annotation of the lien on the property and submit proof to the court. The judge’s omission to require or monitor this compliance constituted a blatant disregard of established rules. This failure, coupled with the fact that the accused was his relative by affinity, created an undeniable appearance of impropriety. His actions demonstrated a conscious indifference to his duties, amounting to gross misconduct. The Court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.