AM RTJ 98 1407; (July, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-98-1407. July 20, 1998.
Sinal Bantuas, Yusop Bantuas, Saidalawi Bantuas, and Monora B. Madcasim, complainants, vs. Judge Yusoph K. Pangadapun and Judge Santos B. Adiong, respondents.
FACTS
Complainants, relatives of the murder victim Bohare Bantuas, charged respondents with gross misconduct in granting bail to the accused, Nixon Macapado, in Criminal Case No. 11-340 for Murder. Respondent Judge Yusoph K. Pangadapun, as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 11, Malabang, Lanao del Sur, issued an Order dated April 7, 1995, granting an Urgent Motion to Fix Bail and setting bail at P40,000.00 without conducting a hearing, allegedly based on the non-objection of the Provincial Prosecutor. He later issued a revocatory order on July 19, 1995. Respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong of RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, acting as Vice Executive Judge, approved the accused’s property bond and ordered his release on July 18, 1995, based on Judge Pangadapun’s April 7 order. Complainants alleged the property bond was defective: it lacked proper description, was not registered or annotated with the Register of Deeds, and was already used as a bond in another civil case.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Judges Pangadapun and Adiong are administratively liable for ignorance of the law in connection with the grant of bail to an accused charged with a capital offense (Murder) without a mandatory hearing and based on a defective bond.
RULING
Yes, both respondents are administratively liable for ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized that a hearing is mandatory before granting bail in capital offenses. Judge Pangadapun violated this rule by granting bail without a hearing, merely based on the prosecutor’s non-objection. His subsequent revocation after three months did not negate his liability, as his initial act constituted gross ignorance of basic legal principles and recent jurisprudence. Judge Adiong was likewise liable for approving a defective property bond without verifying the irregularities in Judge Pangadapun’s order (which lacked a summary of evidence) and the bond’s validity (it was not in prescribed form and was already encumbered). His actions showed poor judgment and gross ignorance. Both judges were ordered to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) each.