G.R. No. RTJ-00-1522. January 20, 2000
ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO, State Prosecutor, complainant, vs. JUDGE POLICARPIO S. CAMANO, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Tigaon, Camarines Sur, respondent.

FACTS

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed an information against Roderick Odiaman for violation of Section 5(b) of the Child Abuse Act ( R.A. No. 7610 ) before the RTC presided by respondent Judge. The defense moved to quash due to lack of preliminary investigation, prompting the judge to remand the case for that purpose. Pending the investigation, the accused filed a petition for bail. Respondent judge scheduled multiple hearings for the prosecution to present evidence opposing bail. Complainant State Prosecutor Tolentino repeatedly failed to appear at these scheduled hearings despite due notice.
After denying a motion for postponement, respondent judge initially granted bail at P50,000. He later set aside this order to give the prosecution another chance, but the prosecutor again failed to appear, instead filing a manifestation questioning the hearing’s prematurity. Subsequently, respondent judge issued a new order granting bail at an increased amount of P100,000. The complainant prosecutor then filed this administrative complaint, alleging gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion for granting bail in a case involving a non-bailable offense and for fixing an improper bail amount.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Policarpio S. Camano, Jr. is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for granting bail to the accused.

RULING

No, the respondent judge is not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the procedural status of the case and the prosecution’s conduct. The accused was charged without a prior preliminary investigation, and the case was duly remanded for that purpose. At that stage, where the propriety of the charge itself was still under determination, the accused could not be considered formally charged for the purpose of bail classification under the rules. Applying Section 17(c), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court and the doctrine in Go v. Court of Appeals, a person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail. Consequently, pending the preliminary investigation, the accused was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The judge’s error in fixing the bail amount at P100,000, which exceeded the DOJ Bailbond Guide recommendation, was not shown to be tainted by fraud, dishonesty, or malice. The Court emphasized that not every judicial error warrants administrative sanction, and the prosecution’s repeated failure to appear and present evidence contributed significantly to the procedural outcome. The judge’s actions, while containing legal inaccuracies, did not rise to the level of gross ignorance constitutive of administrative liability.