G.R. No. MTJ-94-981 November 29, 1995
Annalyn Gimeno, petitioner, vs. Judge Celso A. Arcueno, Sr., 6th MCTC, Catalingan — Pio V. Corpus, Masbate, respondent.

FACTS

Annalyn Gimeno filed an administrative complaint against Judge Celso A. Arcueno, Sr., for grave abuse of discretion and ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from a criminal case for Robbery in Band with Homicide, where the respondent judge, after a preliminary investigation finding probable cause, issued warrants of arrest and set bail at P100,000.00. The complainant alleged that the judge granted bail to accused SPO1 Ronilo Hermosa and ordered his release upon posting a property bond without conducting a hearing or affording the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the bail application.
In his comment, respondent judge explained that he had issued an order for a hearing on the motion to fix bail. He claimed the public prosecutor merely filed a comment, which he interpreted as submitting the matter to his discretion. He further asserted that the evidence of guilt was not strong, a point he argued was later corroborated when the provincial prosecutor dropped several accused, including Hermosa, from the information due to lack of positive identification.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law or grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to an accused charged with a capital offense without conducting a proper hearing where the prosecution could present evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge liable, albeit with a mitigated penalty. The Court emphasized that under the Constitution and the Rules of Court, while bail is a matter of right in non-capital offenses, it is discretionary for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death. This discretion, however, must be exercised judiciously and only after a hearing where the prosecution is given a full opportunity to present evidence to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution in such bail applications.
The Court ruled that the judge’s explanation—that he set a hearing but the prosecutor only filed a comment—was insufficient. A mere comment does not substitute for an actual hearing where evidence is formally offered and examined. The judge’s action deprived the prosecution of its right to procedural due process, rendering the bail grant procedurally infirm. However, considering the judge’s apparent sincere belief in the propriety of his action and the subsequent dropping of the accused from the information, the Court mitigated the recommended penalty. The Office of the Court Administrator’s recommended fine of P20,000 was reduced to P5,000, with a stern warning against future infractions.