G.R. No. RTJ-94-1183. February 6, 1995.
CONCERNED CITIZENS, complainants, vs. JUDGE ARMIE E. ELMA, respondent.

FACTS

An anonymous letter-complaint charged Judge Armie E. Elma, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 153, with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion for granting bail in a non-bailable offense. The complaint stemmed from the case of Alfredo Gatus y Tiamzon, who was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (punishable by life imprisonment) and estafa. In the Information for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, no bail was recommended. The accused filed a motion to fix bail. Instead of setting the application for a hearing, respondent judge directed the prosecution to file its comment or opposition within five days. The prosecution submitted a comment stating it maintained the investigating prosecutor’s finding of no bail recommendation but submitted the matter to the court’s discretion. Without conducting a formal hearing, respondent judge issued an order setting bail at P100,000.00, which he later approved. In his Comment, respondent judge admitted he failed to conduct a formal hearing but claimed that requiring the prosecution to comment substantially complied with the hearing requirement. It was also noted that respondent judge had been previously fined for a similar offense in a murder case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Armie E. Elma is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion for granting bail in a non-bailable offense (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale) without conducting a mandatory hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court ruled that bail is not a matter of right in capital offenses or offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. The Constitution and the Rules of Court mandate that a hearing must first be conducted to determine the existence of strong evidence before ruling on a bail application. At this hearing, the prosecution must be afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence, with the accused having the right to cross-examine and present rebuttal evidence. Respondent judge disregarded this basic rule by not conducting any formal hearing. His order granting bail contained no summary of the prosecution’s evidence or a finding that the evidence of guilt was not strong, merely citing “particular circumstances” without explanation. His claim that requiring a prosecution comment constituted a “summary hearing” demonstrated ignorance of the law, as a summary hearing still requires a brief and speedy method of receiving and considering evidence of guilt. Given that this was a repeat offense after a previous fine and warning, the Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. He was DISMISSED from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.