A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131
LORNA M. VILLANUEVA vs. JUDGE APOLINARIO M. BUAYA, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2241-RTJ), November 22, 2010
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
x x x.
THE COURT’S RULING
On many occasions, we have impressed upon judges that they owe it to the public and the legal profession to know the very law they are supposed to apply in a given controversy.[24] They are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, to be conversant with the basic law, and to maintain the desired professional competence.[25]
With the numerous cases already decided on the matter of bail, we feel justified to expect judges to diligently discharge their duties on the grant or denial of applications for bail. Basco v. Rapatalo[26] laid down the rules outlining the duties of a judge in case an application for bail is filed:
(1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation x x x;
(2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its discretion x x x;
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution x x x; [and]
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the [bail bond]. x x x Otherwise, petition should be denied.
In the present case, Judge Buaya granted the ex-parte motion to grant bail on the same day that it was filed by the accused. He did this without the required notice and hearing. He justified his action on the ex-parte motion by arguing that the offense charged against the accused was a bailable offense; a hearing was no longer required since bail was a matter of right. Under the present Rules of Court, however, notice and hearing are required whether bail is a matter of right or discretion.[27] Likewise, jurisprudence is replete with decisions on the procedural necessity of a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, relative to the grant of bail, especially in cases involving offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, where bail is a matter of discretion.[28]
Judge Buaya further argued that in granting the ex-parte motion, he was merely correcting a reversible error. Believing that the offense committed was bailable in nature, he opined that when the investigating prosecutor revoked the bail already posted by the accused, the prosecutor gravely violated the accused’s constitutional right to bail. Judge Buaya firmly relied on the previous order of the investigating MTC judge who, according to him, correctly fixed the amount of bail. Thus, conducting a bail hearing on the ex-parte motion was no longer necessary. Even assuming, however, that the previous order of the investigating MTC judge was correct in granting bail to the accused, reliance on a previous order granting bail does not justify the absence of a hearing in a subsequent petition for bail.[29]
The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of a bail hearing in petitions for bail. Where bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or the denial of bail hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the judge to properly exercise this discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.[30] This discretion lies not in the determination of whether or not a hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the prosecution’s evidence of guilt against the accused.
In any event, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail.[31] This Court has repeatedly held in past cases that even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an accused, the court may still require the prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain, not only the strength of the State's evidence, but also the adequacy of the amount of bail. [32]
One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the Court the duty to maintain professional competence at all times.[33] When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge owes the public and the Court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice.[34]
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Acting Presiding Judge Apolinario M. Buaya of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, of Palompon, Leyte, GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority, and is hereby FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall merit a more serious penalty.
SO ORDERED.
x x x.
