G.R. No. RTJ-95-1286. March 2, 1995. TERESITA Q. TUCAY, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROGER A. DOMAGAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Teresita Q. Tucay, the wife of the victim in a murder case (Criminal Case No. U-6762), charged respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas with ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, and grave abuse of discretion. The accusation stemmed from the judge’s handling of a petition for bail filed by accused Bernardo Ellamil. The judge had initially denied a bail petition for lacking the provincial prosecutor’s conformity. A second petition was filed the next day bearing the notation “No objection” from Provincial Prosecutor Jose Antonio Guillermo.
Without conducting any hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt was strong, a mandatory requirement in capital offenses like murder, respondent judge issued an order on the same day granting bail and directing the accused’s release upon posting a P50,000 bond. Complainant protested that this was done without notice to the trial fiscal and that the property initially offered as bond was undervalued.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for granting bail in a capital offense without conducting the requisite hearing and without a proper evaluation of the evidence and the sufficiency of the bond.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear and procedural. Under Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an application for bail in a capital offense requires a hearing where the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present evidence. The court must then determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong before granting bail. This hearing is indispensable; it is not rendered unnecessary even if the prosecution interposes no objection, as the court must still exercise its judicial discretion to ascertain the strength of the State’s evidence.
Respondent judge disregarded this fundamental rule. By issuing the release order on the very day the petition was filed, without a hearing and without summarizing any evidence or making a finding that the evidence of guilt was not strong, he committed a patent violation of established procedure. His failure to initially verify the adequacy of the property bond’s value further demonstrated negligence. Such actions constitute not mere error in judgment but a gross ignorance of well-known legal rules. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00 and issued a stern warning.