AM RTJ 92 822; (February, 2008) (Digest)
ADM. MATTER NO. RTJ-92-822; February 4, 2008
ROBERTO L. UNTALAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE DEODORO J. SISON, RTC, Branch 40, Dagupan City, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Roberto L. Untalan, brother of the victims, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Deodoro J. Sison for gross ignorance of the law and partiality. The case stemmed from the judge’s handling of a petition for bail in Criminal Case No. D-10678 for double murder. The accused filed their petition on a Saturday, December 21, 1991, setting the hearing for the following Monday, December 23, and served a copy on the prosecution that same Saturday. On December 23, respondent judge granted the petition and fixed bail without conducting a proper hearing. The prosecution filed an opposition and a motion for reconsideration, arguing it was denied due process to present evidence on the strength of the prosecution’s case, but the judge denied these motions.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law in granting bail to the accused charged with a capital offense.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear and twofold. First, the judge violated procedural due process by acting on the petition without the mandatory three-day notice to the prosecution as required by the Rules of Court. The notice given was grossly insufficient. Second, and more critically, in cases involving a capital offense like murder, bail is discretionary and can only be granted after a hearing where the prosecution is afforded a meaningful opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. The judge’s so-called “hearing” was a mere pro forma query to the prosecutor; he did not conduct a genuine evidentiary hearing, receive evidence, or make a summary and conclusion regarding the strength of the prosecution’s evidence in his order. His haste, citing only that the accused had been detained since October, did not justify bypassing this fundamental requirement. The failure to observe these basic rules constituted either ignorance of settled jurisprudence on bail or partiality. Although respondent had already been dismissed from service in a separate case, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) to be deducted from any remaining accrued leave credits.