G.R. No. RTJ-93-1052. October 27, 1994.
ENRICA B. AGUIRRE and NENITA A. DELA CRUZ, complainants, vs. JUDGE CANDIDO R. BELMONTE, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Malolos, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants were the offended parties in two murder cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 1024-M-91 and 1025-M-91) filed against Estelita Hipolito and others for the ambush-slaying of Bernardo Aguirre and Avelino Cruz. After preliminary investigation and review by the Department of Justice, the cases were filed with no bail recommended. The case raffled to Branch 22 (presided by respondent Judge Candido R. Belmonte) was consolidated with the other case in his branch. Respondent judge, on his own motion and without any application from the accused, issued warrants of arrest and simultaneously authorized the provisional release of all accused on bail set at P100,000 each per charge, without notice or hearing. The accused posted bail, were arraigned, and trial proceeded. Due to repeated absences of the designated state prosecutor, respondent judge provisionally dismissed the cases despite the presence of the private prosecutor and an ongoing cross-examination. Upon prosecution’s motion, the cases were reinstated, but respondent later granted the accused’s motion for reconsideration, declaring the dismissal tantamount to an acquittal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. Complainants filed this administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, evident partiality, and dishonesty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for: (1) consolidating the two murder cases in his branch; (2) granting bail motu proprio without application, notice, or hearing; and (3) dismissing the cases provisionally and later declaring such dismissal as an acquittal.

RULING

1. On consolidation: The consolidation was proper. It was ordered by Judge Amante M. Laforteza of Branch 20 pursuant to a motion by the accused’s counsel, and consolidation in the branch with the lower docket number (Branch 22) was a common practice. No liability attaches.
2. On grant of bail: Respondent judge is administratively liable. Murder is a capital offense where bail is discretionary and requires a hearing to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong. Respondent granted bail sua sponte without any application from the accused, without notice to the prosecution, and without conducting a hearing. His reliance on Lim, Sr. v. Felix (G.R. Nos. 94054-57) was erroneous, as that case requires a judge to personally evaluate evidence before issuing a warrant of arrest, but does not authorize granting bail without a petition and hearing. His actions constituted gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
3. On dismissal/acquittal: While the dismissal based on the state prosecutor’s absences touched on the accused’s right to a speedy trial, the declaration that it was tantamount to an acquittal was improper, as a provisional dismissal does not equate to acquittal. However, this issue was ultimately resolved by the branch to which the cases were re-raffled after respondent’s inhibition.
DISPOSITION:
Respondent Judge Candido R. Belmonte is ordered to pay a FINE of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), with a warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely. A copy of the decision is to be attached to his personal record.