A.M. No. MTJ-05-1582; February 28, 2005
Antonio Ocenar, complainant, vs. Judge Odelon S. Mabutin, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Antonio Ocenar charged Judge Odelon S. Mabutin of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, with grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s grant of bail to accused Raymund Monsanto in a case for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), which prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death. Ocenar alleged that Monsanto, being the grandson of an Executive Judge, received undue favor, as bail was granted even before the preliminary investigation concluded and was later reduced. In contrast, the complainant pointed out that another accused, Felix Bantugan, was denied bail in a similar drug case.
In his Comment, Judge Mabutin defended his actions. He explained that the hearings on Monsanto’s bail application were conducted with proper procedures, noting that a judge-designate initially presided and that the prosecution was informed. He justified his authority to grant bail under Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Regarding the denial of bail to Bantugan, the respondent clarified that no bail application was ever filed by that accused. He also denied any partiality, stating his professional relationship with Judge Monsanto was merely official and social, with no personal favors involved.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Odelon S. Mabutin is administratively liable for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law for granting bail to an accused charged with a capital offense under R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the Court held that a municipal judge conducting a preliminary investigation has the authority to grant bail, as explicitly provided under Rule 114, Section 17 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The grant of bail is a discretionary judicial function, and the respondent judge conducted hearings to determine its propriety. The prosecution’s subsequent review and lack of objection to the bail grant further indicated regularity in the proceedings.
On the charge of grave misconduct and partiality, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the allegations. The complainant failed to prove that the grant of bail was motivated by bias. The differing outcomes between the Monsanto and Bantugan cases were adequately explained by the fact that Bantugan never applied for bail. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and judges enjoy a presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. The Court found no breach of judicial ethics, as the respondent’s actions were in accordance with law and jurisprudence.