A.M. No. MTJ-96-1112. December 27, 1996. ANTONIO ADAPON, complainant, vs. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Antonio Adapon was a private complainant in criminal cases filed against Pedrito Bondoc in the MCTC of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. On May 4, 1995, warrants of arrest were issued against Bondoc, but the arresting officers failed to locate and arrest him. The following day, May 5, respondent Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy, presiding judge of the MCTC of Santa Monica-Burgos, issued an order for Bondoc’s release on the ground that he had posted bail. However, a certification from the MCTC Clerk of Court of Dapa dated May 11, 1995, stated that no bail bond had been filed by the accused as of that date. Adapon filed an administrative complaint, alleging the order of release was irregular as Bondoc was not under custody and no valid bail bond had been filed at the time.
Respondent judge claimed the order was regular, asserting the accused had been detained in a private house and that the bail bond, supported by a treasurer’s certification, was filed in his court in Sta. Monica. The investigating judge initially recommended absolution, citing possible procedural delays in transmitting the bail bond to the Dapa court. However, a subsequent investigation ordered by the Supreme Court, based on police testimonies, confirmed that Bondoc was never arrested or surrendered to authorities, and the warrants were returned unserved.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Domagtoy is administratively liable for issuing an order of release on bail for an accused who was not under the custody of the law.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. The Supreme Court emphasized that bail is defined under Section 1, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as security given for the release of a person “in custody of the law.” The clear legal logic is that bail presupposes a prior deprivation of liberty; its purpose is to secure the temporary release of a detained accused to ensure appearance at trial. Granting bail to one who is free is a fundamental legal error.
The evidence conclusively established that accused Bondoc was never arrested or detained. The police officers testified they could not locate him to serve the warrants. Consequently, Bondoc was not in lawful custody when respondent judge issued the release order. The Court found that respondent judge had no jurisdiction to grant bail, as the alleged arrest, if any, occurred in Dapa, outside his territorial jurisdiction as judge of the Santa Monica-Burgos MCTC. His claim of the accused’s detention was unsubstantiated. Considering his prior administrative sanction for similar misconduct, the Court, adopting the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation, fined him Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, with a warning against repetition.