G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262; February 9, 2011 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3056-RTJ)
Case Title: GAUDENCIO B. PANTILO III, Complainant, vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY, Respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Gaudencio Pantilo III, is the brother of the victim in Criminal Case No. 8072 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He charged Judge Victor A. Canoy of the RTC, Branch 29, Surigao City, with gross ignorance of the law/procedures, grave abuse of authority, and appearance of impropriety. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s actions concerning the accused, Leonardo Luzon Melgazo. On September 3, 2008, after inquest proceedings concluded around 5:00 p.m., Melgazo, with his counsel, went to Judge Canoy’s office to post bail. Judge Canoy, acknowledging the late hour and that court staff had left, summoned the inquest prosecutor, who confirmed the charge and recommended bail of PhP 30,000 but stated the Information could not be filed until the next day. Despite the absence of a formal Information or a written bail application, Judge Canoy instructed a clerk to accept the bail deposit and date the receipt for the following day. He then verbally ordered police escorts to release Melgazo from detention, assuring them a written order would follow. The Information was filed the next day, September 4. Subsequently, Judge Canoy granted Melgazo’s motion for the release of an impounded vehicle, filed on September 5 with a hearing set for the same day, after receiving and considering the prosecution’s comment. Pantilo also alleged his motion for inhibition was denied.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Victor A. Canoy is administratively liable for his actions in granting bail to the accused and ordering his release without a formal Information filed and without a written bail application, in violation of procedural rules.

RULING

Yes, Judge Victor A. Canoy is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the evaluation and recommendation of the Court Administrator well-founded. While an accused has a constitutional right to bail, especially for a non-capital offense, the manner of release must comply with procedure. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a written application for bail. Judge Canoy verbally granted bail without any written application from Melgazo, a clear deviation from the rules. The Court rejected the judge’s defense of acting on the accused’s constitutional right and his claim of a “constructive bail,” emphasizing that procedural rules are mandatory and intended to ensure orderly administration of justice. The Court found Judge Canoy guilty of a less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The imposable penalty under the circumstances was a fine of PhP 11,000. He was also sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.