G.R. No. MTJ-95-1018. April 18, 1995. ROGELIO L. SULE, complainant, vs. JUDGE JONATHAN S. BITENG, Municipal Trial Court, Candon, Ilocos Sur, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Rogelio L. Sule, father of a murder victim, charged respondent Judge Jonathan S. Biteng with gross ignorance of law. The charge stemmed from the judge’s handling of Criminal Case No. 2751 for Murder. On August 3, 1993, after preliminary investigation, Judge Biteng issued an order finding probable cause against the accused and explicitly stating that the evidence of guilt was strong, thereby recommending that no bail be granted. However, on August 13, 1993, upon a petition for bail filed by one accused, Jose R. Villalobos, Judge Biteng granted bail in the amount of P50,000. He did so without conducting a hearing and without affording the prosecution any opportunity to present evidence or oppose the petition. The petition itself lacked a notice of hearing for the prosecution.
In his defense, Judge Biteng admitted granting bail without a hearing but justified his action by citing the accused’s voluntary surrender. He argued that this mitigating circumstance led him to believe the accused would not flee, making notice to the prosecutor an “idle ceremony.” He further contended that since the accused subsequently attended all court hearings, no miscarriage of justice occurred.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jonathan S. Biteng is administratively liable for gross ignorance of law for granting bail in a murder case without a hearing and without affording the prosecution due process.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of law. The Supreme Court emphasized that in capital offenses like murder, where the evidence of guilt is strong, bail is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion. This discretion, however, must be exercised only after a hearing where the prosecution is given an opportunity to present evidence to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. Granting bail without such a hearing constitutes a denial of procedural due process and renders the order void.
The Court rejected the judge’s justifications. First, the determination of whether evidence of guilt is strong for bail purposes is separate from the appreciation of mitigating circumstances like voluntary surrender for penalty imposition. His earlier finding of strong evidence of guilt was controlling. Second, his claim that notice to the prosecutor was unnecessary because he was predisposed to grant bail aggravated his liability, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional and procedural safeguards governing bail in capital cases. By deliberately disregarding settled jurisprudence, he exhibited gross ignorance of the law. Accordingly, the Court fined him Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) with a stern warning.