G.R. No. RTJ-21-017. March 8, 2023.
Marilou Casas Usama, complainant, vs. (Ret.) Hon. Oscar D. Tomarong, Branch 28, Regional Trial Court, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marilou Casas Usama is the widow of PO1 Mirdan Usama, who was killed in a shootout on May 4, 2016, with mayoralty candidate Alson Chan and his campaign volunteers. The following day, May 5, 2016 (a Muslim holiday), Chan filed an “Application to Post Bail and to Release the Detained Person Pending Filing of Proper Information” before respondent Judge Oscar D. Tomarong’s court. On the same day, respondent issued an Order granting bail to Chan fixed at ₱200,000.00 without conducting a hearing or notifying the prosecutor. The police refused to release Chan. On May 6, 2016, the Provincial Prosecutor filed Informations against Chan and his volunteers for Murder (a capital offense where bail is discretionary), Attempted Murder, Illegal Possession of Firearms, and Illegal Possession of Explosives. On May 7, 2016, Chan’s wife filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus. On May 10, 2016, after a hearing on the habeas corpus petition, respondent issued an Order directing the release of Chan and his three co-accused upon each posting a ₱200,000.00 bail bond “in all cases that will be filed against them.” Complainant filed an administrative complaint charging respondent with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. Respondent retired on April 1, 2019.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Oscar D. Tomarong is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct for granting bail without a hearing and without notice to the prosecutor in a murder case, and for ordering the release of all accused on bail in a habeas corpus proceeding.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct.
The Court found respondent guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law. In murder cases, bail is not a matter of right but of discretion, and its grant hinges on a determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong. This determination is a judicial function that mandates a hearing with notice to the prosecutor to afford them an opportunity to present evidence. Respondent granted bail merely based on his own estimation that the crime was only homicide, without a hearing and without notifying the prosecutor, in blatant disregard of settled procedural rules and jurisprudence. His claim that he acted under Supreme Court Circular No. 95-96 (authorizing judges to act on bailable offenses during holidays) is untenable, as the circular applies only to bailable offenses, not to capital offenses like murder where bail is discretionary.
Respondent is also guilty of Gross Misconduct. His actions were not mere errors of judgment but a conscious and intentional disregard of fundamental rules. By granting bail in a capital offense without a hearing, and further ordering the release of all accused on bail during the habeas corpus proceeding—effectively setting bail for charges not yet before his court and for co-accused who had not even filed bail applications—he exhibited a pattern of arbitrariness and overreach that undermined the integrity of the judiciary.
Considering respondent’s retirement, the imposable penalty of suspension can no longer be served. Applying the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty is converted into a fine equivalent to his salary for the suspension period, deductible from his retirement benefits. The Court imposed a fine of ₱400,000.00, corresponding to a six-month suspension, to be deducted from any accrued leave credits or retirement benefits due to him.