G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1454; August 27, 2002
Ariel Y. Panganiban, complainant, vs. Judge Ma. Victoria N. Cupin-Tesorero, Presiding Judge, Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Silang-Amadeo, Cavite, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ariel Panganiban filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ma. Victoria N. Cupin-Tesorero for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The complaint arose from the judge’s grant of bail to Jayson Toledo Marte, accused in Crim. Case No. TG-3266-00 for rape. The initial complaint for violation of R.A. No. 7610 was filed with respondent’s court. After preliminary investigation, respondent judge issued a resolution finding probable cause for rape under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 , recommended bail of P120,000.00, and forwarded the records to the Provincial Prosecutor. An information for rape was subsequently filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Cavite City, with no bail recommended. Despite this, on February 26, 2000, respondent judge issued an order approving the accused’s bail bond and directing his release. Respondent judge claimed she acted under Rule 114, §17 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the RTC judge was allegedly unavailable, and she believed the offense was bailable. An investigation by Executive Judge Manuel M. Mayo revealed respondent had similarly granted bail without authority in several other cases.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ma. Victoria N. Cupin-Tesorero is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for granting bail to an accused after she had lost jurisdiction over the case and without legal authority.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that respondent judge no longer had jurisdiction over the case after concluding the preliminary investigation and forwarding the records to the Provincial Prosecutor, as the case was then within the exclusive domain of the RTC. Her reliance on Rule 114, §17(a) was misplaced, as that rule applies only when an accused is arrested in a place different from where the case is pending, which was not the situation here. The accused was arrested and detained in Cavite, and his case was pending in the RTC of Cavite; thus, bail could only be filed with that court or another branch of the same court, not with a municipal circuit trial court judge. The Court emphasized that judges must keep abreast of legal principles and cannot plead good faith or lack of malicious intent for erroneous actions. Respondent’s claim of being a relatively new judge was unavailing. The Court noted the investigating judge’s finding that respondent had a pattern of granting bail without authority in other cases, further demonstrating gross ignorance of the law. Accordingly, respondent Judge Ma. Victoria N. Cupin-Tesorero was found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and FINED twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.