363 Phil. 629
PER CURIAM:
In his answer dated 13 August 1998 Judge Yaneza admits having approved bail bonds posted by the accused who were detained outside of Navotas and whose cases were pending in courts outside of his jurisdiction. Nevertheless, according to him, he approved the bail bonds and issued corresponding release orders in good faith and not for any pecuniary consideration. He maintains that there is nothing irregular in his conduct as it did not in any way prejudice the rights of the other litigants. Furthermore, he claims that he only approved the bail bonds and issued release orders for personal fulfillment and spiritual satisfaction in extending expeditious assistance to the hapless and pitiful detention prisoners. He condemns the filing of the instant letter-complaint, with complainant hiding behind the anonymity of a fictitious name and intended merely to embarrass and malign respondent's integrity.
- At 5:25 p.m. on 25 August 1997 Judge Yaneza issued a release order for Dario Daquilog y Mabalacad who was detained at the DILG-PARAC Detention Center in connection with Crim. Case No. Q-97-72204 pending before RTC-Br. 218, Quezon City.
- On 11 February 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a consolidated order in Crim. Cases Nos. 7992-AF, 7994-AF, 7995-AF of RTC-Brs. 26, 24, 28 and 86, Cabanatuan City, commanding the release of the accused Consolacion F. de la Cruz, detained at the PNP-CIG Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City. In Crim. Case No. 7995-AF no bail was recommended for the provisional liberty of de la Cruz. Also, the bail bonds were presented to respondent Judge in his office at 7:00 p.m.
- At 1:30 p.m. on 28 February 1998, a Saturday, Judge Yaneza issued a release order relative to Crim. Cases Nos. 28102-22 pending before MeTC-Br. 34, Quezon City. The accused was detained at PNP-BDO, Camp Karingal, Sikatuna, Quezon City.
- On 21 March 1998, a Saturday, Judge Yaneza issued a release order for Henry Lasay who was detained at the PNP-WPD, U.N. Avenue, Manila, in connection with Crim. Case Nos. 14111-14116 pending before RTC-Br. 48, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan.
- On 5 April 1998, a Saturday, Judge Yaneza issued a release order relative to Crim. Case No. 2618 pending before RTC-Br. 34, Balaoan, La Union.
- On 8 April 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a release order relative to Crim. Case Nos. 080-98 to 099-98 pending before MTC-Balagtas, Bulacan.
- On 16 June 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a release order relative to Crim. Case No. 41-98 pending before RTC-Br. 5, Lemery, Batangas while the corresponding JDF fees were not paid. The accused was detained at PNP-WPD, U.N. Avenue, Manila.
- On 23 June 1998 Judge Yaneza also approved the bail bond for Julieta Sta. Maria y Moya who is charged in Crim. Case No. 90381 pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City, while the accused was detained at the Quezon City Jail-Station 7, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City.
- On 23 June 1998 Judge Yaneza approved the bail bond of Melissa Laurente Manlangit who was charged with Crim. Case No. Q-98-77419 before the RTC-Br. 87, Quezon City. Laurente at that time was detained at the Quezon City Jail-Araneta Police Station, Cubao, Quezon City.
- On 2 July 1998 Judge Yaneza approved the bail bond of Hassan Hussin y Sabdani who was accused in Crim. Case No. Q-98-77567 pending before RTC-Br. 107, Quezon City, and issued a release order although the accused was detained at the PNP-CPDO, Camp Karingal, Quezon City. The release order was issued at 7:40 p.m.
- On 3 July 1998 Judge Yaneza approved the bail bond of Librada Natividad who was accused in Crim. Case nos. (30)50301-20 pending before MeTC-Br. 39, Quezon City, and correspondingly issued a release order therefor although accused was detained at the DILG-BJMP, NCR, Valenzuela Municipal Jail. The release order was issued at 7:15 p.m.
- At 7:25 p.m. on 3 July 1998 Judge Yaneza approved two (2) bail bonds and issued the release order of Carlito Baydo y Cabiong who was detained at the Baler Police Station, Quezon City in connection with Crim. Cases Nos. Q-98-77603-04 pending before RTC-Br. 80, Quezon City.
- At 5:45 p.m. on 15 July 1998 Judge Yaneza approved the bail and issued the release order of Elenita Bacares y Lambino in connection with Crim. Cases Nos. 2072-2087 pending before RTC-Br. 34, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. The accused was detained at the PNP-CPD CID, Camp Karingal, Sikatuna, Quezon City.
- On 17 July 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a release order for Adriano Dizon y Santos who was detained at the PNP-CPDO, Quezon City in connection with Crim. Cases No. 98-90795 pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City.
- On 17 July 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a release order for Adonis Malacora who was detained at the PNP-NPDO, Malabon Police Station, Malabon, Metro Manila, in connection with Crim. Case No. 89005 pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City.
- On 17 July 1998 Judge Yaneza approved the bail bond of Manuel E. Fabros y Deliquiado, then detained at the Central Police District Police Station No. 7, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City, in connection with Crim. Case No. 98-90729 pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City.
- On 19 July 1998, a Sunday, Judge Yaneza issued a release order to Teresita Agayatin y Ayuntan who was detained at the PNP-WPD Warrant Section, U.N. Avenue, Manila, in connection with Crim. Case No. 98-0714 pending before RTC-Br. 118, Pasay City.
- On 21 July 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a release order for Maria Luz Catindig y Gamboa, then detained at the PNP-CIDG, NCR, Camp Crame, Quezon City, in connection with Crim. Case No. 98-086 pending before RTC-Pasay City.
- On 21 July 1998, at 6:05 p.m. Judge Yaneza issued a release order for Jerry Chan y Victoriano who was detained at the PNP-NPD, Malabon Police Station, Malabon, Metro Manila, in connection with Crim. Case No. 7656-98 pending before MeTC-Br. 56, Malabon.
- On 25 August 1998 Judge Yaneza approved the bail bond relative to Crim. Case No. RC-0135-Cr. Pending before his sala despite non-payment of JDF fees.
- On 23 September 1998 a release order was issued relative to Crim. Case No. 98-0045-CR pending before the sala of Judge Yaneza despite non-payment of JDF fees.
- At 6:05 p.m. on 7 October 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a release order relative to Crim. Case No. 9947 pending before the RTC of Malabon while the corresponding JDF fees were not paid.
The accused had already been convicted in Crim. Cases Nos. 18045-46 pending before Executive Judge Aquino but because of the bail bond approved and the order issued by Judge Yaneza, the accused was released.- On 18 October 1998 Judge Yaneza issued a release order relative to Crim. Case No. 20933 pending before the RTC of Malabon while the corresponding JDF fees were not paid.
- On 19 October 1998 and relative to Crim. Cases Nos. 189164-66 pending before MeTC-Br. 50, Caloocan City, Judge Yaneza issued a release order while the corresponding JDF fees were not paid.
- On 9 November 1998 at 6:10 p.m. Judge Yaneza issued a release order relative to Crim. Cases Nos. 7751-98 pending before MeTC-Br. 55, Malabon.
Perhaps due to the brewing antagonism which further strained the relationship between respondent Judge and his branch clerk of court, the former issued Office Order No. 04-98 authorizing four (4) of his court personnel, aside from the clerk of court and cash clerk, to receive payments and issue official receipts relative to docket and other fees paid by litigants. Because the personnel thus designated by respondent Judge were not bonded, hence not authorized by law to receive payments, the OCA on 31 August 1998 directed respondent Judge to desist and refrain from implementing his Office Order No. 04-98.
- Crim. Cases Nos. 7-835 to 7-837-98 for BP 22 pending before the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan;
- Crim. Cases Nos. 7-838 to 7-843-98 for BP 22 also pending before the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan; and
- Crim. Case No. 7528 for falsification of public documents pending before the MCTC, Nabua, Camarines Sur.
Notably, in addition to the instant case, respondent Judge Yaneza along with his Staff Clerk Bethsaida Miranda is confronted with another administrative complaint docketed as OCA IPI No. 98-586 filed by spouses Rogelio and Elvira Conje for extorting money from complainant-spouses in consideration of the approval of their application for bail in Crim. Cases Nos. RC-0058-71 pending before his sala. The complaint has yet to be resolved.
- Crim. Case No. 90-591 pending before MTC-Br. II, Angeles City;
- Crim. Case No. 98-2419 pending before RTC-Br. 273, Marikina City; and
- Crim. Cases Nos. 14111-14116 pending before RTC-Br. 48, Puerto Princesa, Palawan.
The records of the instant administrative case sufficiently provide a conclusive basis for respondent judge's administrative liability. His unlawful act of approving the bail bond and ordering the release of an accused charged with an explicitly non-bailable offense pending in another court far away from his station is an anomaly so glaring on a matter so basic that to suggest that the act was done in gross ignorance is to insult even the most naïve. To offer as an excuse to this Court that he did so, not out of ignorance, but in good faith is to administer a double insult to common sense x x x xThe OCA then recommended that an investigation on the bonding companies that usually flocked the sala of respondent Judge be conducted and Judge Yaneza be immediately dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and privileges with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
Clearly, respondent judge cannot justify his actions of approving bail bonds and issuing release orders of accused persons detained outside of his territorial jurisdiction and who have pending cases in other courts on the pretext of a feigned authority under the rules. For the rule is clear and does not permit the liberal interpretation that respondent judge claims he is entitled to apply to the rules. The unjustified and unlawful acts of respondent judge in the premises constitute grave misconduct amounting to corruption. The acts complained of were in persistent and patent disregard of the well-known legal rules that compassion and pity which purportedly motivated him to approve the bail bonds and to release the accused in illegal circumstances will not serve to exonerate him from administrative liability. Respondent judge's actions were corrupt and were indeed motivated by an intention to violate the law. The issuance of the questioned release orders after office hours, during Saturdays or Sundays and at the residence of respondent judge is indisputably irregular, unlawful and anomalous and is totally inconsistent with any claim of good faith in the performance of his judicial functions.
Despite the filing of this administrative complaint and even after his attention was called to the matter, respondent judge has continued approving bail bonds and issuing release orders for cases outside of his jurisdiction. These willful transgressions of the law are absolutely reprehensible and definitely inexcusable x x x
(a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or city. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of said place, or, if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.The foregoing provision anticipates two (2) situations. First, the accused is arrested in the same province, city or municipality where his case is pending. Second, the accused is arrested in the province, city or municipality other than where his case is pending. In the first situation, the accused may file bail in the court where his case is pending or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or city. In the second situation, the accused has two (2) options. First, he may file bail in the court where his case is pending or, second, he may file bail with any regional trial court in the province, city or muncipality where he was arrested. When no regional trial court judge is available, he may file bail with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
(1) Crim. Cases Nos. 7992-AF, 7994-AF, 7995-AF are pending in RTC-Brs. 24, 26, 28 and 86 of Cabanatuan City while the accused was detained at the PNP-CIG Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City. Significantly, no bail was recommended in these cases.There were also cases pending before the courts in La Union, Bulacan and Caloocan. Unfortunately, it cannot be determined from available records whether the accused in the aforementioned cases were arrested in a place within respondent Judge's territorial jurisdiction.
(2) Crim. Cases Nos. 28102-22 are pending before MeTC-Br. 34 of Quezon City while the accused was detained at PNP-BDO, Camp Karingal, Quezon City.
(3) Crim. Cases Nos. 14111-14116 are pending before RTC-Br. 48, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan while the accused was detained at WPD, U.N. Avenue, Manila.
(4) Crim. Case no. 41-98 is pending before RTC-Br. 5, Lemery, Batangas while the accused was detained at PNP-WPD, U.N. Avenue, Manila.
(5) Crim. Case No. 90381 is pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City while accused was detained at the Quezon City Jail, Station 7, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City.
(6) Crim. Case No. Q-98-77419 is pending before RTC-Br. 87, Quezon City while accused was detained at the Quezon City Jail, Araneta Police Station, Cubao, Quezon City.
(7) Crim. Case No. Q-98-77567 is pending before RTC-Br. 107, Quezon City while accused was detained at PNP-CPDO, Camp Karingal, Quezon City.
(8) Crim. Cases Nos. (30)50301-20 are pending before MeTC-Br. 39, Quezon City while accused was detained at DILG-BJMP, NCR, Valenzuela Municipal Jail.
(9) Crim. Cases Nos. Q-98-77603-04 are pending before RTC-Br. 80, Quezon City while accused was detained at Baler Police Station, Quezon City.
(10) Crim. Cases Nos. 2072-2087 are pending before RTC-Br. 34, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, while accused was detained at the PNP-CPD CID, Camp Karingal, Sikatuna, Quezon City.
(11) Crim. Case No. 98-90795 is pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City while accused was detained at the PNP-CPDO, Quezon City.
(12) Crim. Case No. 89005 is pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City while accused was detained at the PNP-NPDO, Malabon Police Station, Malabon.
(13) Crim. Case No. 98-90729 is pending before MeTC-Br. 41, Quezon City while accused was detained at the CPD, Station 7, Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City.
(14) Crim. Case No. 98-0714 is pending before RTC-Br. 118 of Pasay City while accused was detained at the PNP-WPD Warrant Section, U.N. Avenue, Manila.
(15) Crim. Case No. 98-086 is pending before RTC-Pasay City while accused was detained at the PNP-CIDG, NCR, Camp Crame, Quezon City.
(16) Crim. Case No. 7656-98 is pending before MeTC-Br. 56 in Malabon while accused was detained at the PNP-NPD, Malabon Police Station, Malabon.
Sec. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch. - The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised with a view to making the courts readily accessible to the people of the different parts of the region and making the attendance of litigants and witnesses as inexpensive as possible (emphasis supplied).Such prerogative was exercised by this Court when it issued Administrative Order No. 3 defining the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in the National Capital Region[2] thus -
The Regional Trial Courts with seats in Malabon exercise appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts located in Malabon and Navotas. It is thus clear that the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts stationed in Malabon is limited to the municipalities of Malabon and Navotas. By necessity, the Metropolitan Trial Courts with seats in Malabon and Navotas have, likewise, limited jurisdiction therein.
- Branches I to LXXXII, inclusive, with seats at Manila - over the City of Manila only.
- Branches LXXXIII to CVII, inclusive, with seats Quezon City - over Quezon City only.
- Branches CVIII to CXIX, inclusive, with seats at Pasay City - over Pasay City only.
- Branches CXX to CXXXI, inclusive, with seats at Caloocan City - over Caloocan City only.
- Branches CXXXII to CL, inclusive, with seats at Makati - over the Municipalities of Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, and Parañaque.
- Branches CLI to CLXVIII, inclusive, with seats at Pasig - comprising the municipalities of Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Pateros, San Juan, and Taguig.
- Branches CLXIX to CLXX, inclusive, with seats at Malabon - over the municipalities of Malabon and Navotas.
- Branches CLXXI to CLXXII, inclusive, with seats at Valenzuela - over the municipality of Valenzuela - over the municipality of Valenzuela only (emphasis supplied).
To Any Officer of the Law:It is futile for respondent Judge to cite Paz v. Tiong[4] as it only confirms his practice of approving bail bonds in cases pending outside of his territorial jurisdiction and where the accused were arrested likewise in places outside of his territorial jurisdiction, which is not in consonance with the rules duly promulgated by this Court. We reiterate what we have said in Paz v. Tiong -
GREETING:
You are hereby commanded to arrest _________________________ who is said to be at _________________________ and who is charged before me with the crime of _________________________ and to bring him before me as soon as possible to be dealt with according to law.
The bail for his temporary liberty is hereby fixed at P________ each, which may be furnished by him either (a) by depositing the amount of the bond in the office of the municipal/city treasurer of the municipality/city where the accused is arrested, and the receipt therefor forwarded to this Court, or (b) by purchasing the proper money order made payable to the order of this Court and sent to the same Court, or (c) by personal bail bond for double the amount therein fixed executed by two or more solvent bondsmen who are either freeholders or householders and residents in the Philippines to be determined either by the Judge of the Regional Trial Court of the Judicial Region or by the Judge of MeTC/MuTC/MCTC of the municipality/city where the accused may be arrested, who are hereby authorized to approve either one of said bonds, and to order the provisional liberty of the accused, immediately thereafter, and who shall forward to this Court all the papers of the proceedings (emphasis supplied)
Respondent had absolutely no authority to approve the bailbond and issue the orders of release. He totally ignored and disregarded Section 14 of Rule 114 x x x x As afore-stated, Criminal Case No. 2859-A was pending before Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court stationed in Alaminos, Pangasinan, and only said Regional Trial Court may approve the bailbond and issue the release order. The record is devoid of any showing that no RTC judge was available to act on the bail bond. Neither does the record show that the accused was arrested in another province, city, or municipality. Respondent judge, therefore, had no reason or authority to act as he did (emphasis supplied).[5]In Adapon v. Domagtoy[6] we also stated -
But even assuming that bail could be granted in this case, it was not within the jurisdiction of the respondent judge to grant the same. Bail may be granted by the court in which it is properly filed x x x xIn another case,[7] Judge Yaneza acknowledged receipt of P160,000.00 cash bond in violation of Sec. 14, Rule 114 which provides:
The criminal cases are pending before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. The order of release should have been issued if at all, by that court, or in the absence or unavailability of Judge Jose Comon who hears the cases in the MCTC of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, then by another branch of an MCTC within Surigao del Norte. However, there is no proof that Judge Comon was absent or unavailable on 5 May 1995 to grant the bail x x x x If judge Comon was indeed absent or unavailable, there is no evidence on record that respondent judge tried to ascertain or confirms this fact.
Furthermore, there is no evidence presented that the accused Bondoc was arrested in the municipality of Sta. Monica, Burgos, to clothe respondent judge with authority to grant the bail and issue the order of release in the absence of any RTC judge. Respondent judge avers that accused was arrested in the house of Arsenio Mindaña in Dapa, which statement makes his order of release all the more untenable because the arrest was allegedly made in Dapa while the order of release issued by respondent judge in his capacity as presiding judge of the 11th MCTC of Santa Monica-Burgos. Respondent judge, therefore, granted bail and issued the order of release without jurisdiction.
Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. - The accuse or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue, or provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount fixed by the court or recommended by the fiscal who investigated or filed the case, and upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of Section 2 hereof, the accused shall be discharged from custody. Money thus deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of any fine and costs and the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit (emphasis supplied).This rule is uniformly embodied in every warrant of arrest which respondent, as a trial judge, should be familiar with. Unfortunately, he blatantly disregarded this basic and elementary rule.
In exercising such judicial discretion, however, a judge is required to conduct a hearing wherein both the prosecution and the defense present evidence that would point to the strength or weakness of the evidence of guilt. The discretion of the judge lies solely in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the evidence presented during the hearing and not in the determination of whether or not the hearing and itself should be held for such a hearing is considered mandatory and absolutely indispensable before a judge can aptly be said to be in a position to determine whether the evidence for the prosecution is weak or strong.Further, in Basco v. Rapatalo[9] we said -
Thus, when a judge grants bail to a person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the required hearing, he is considered guilty of ignorance or incompetence the gravity of which cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable negligence.
Since the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is a matter of judicial discretion, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application for bail to the discretion of the court.Judge Yaneza, in granting bail to accused dela Cruz without any hearing, deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to contest her application for bail, thus denying the People due process.[10] Worse, the case was pending not in respondent's sala in Navotas but in RTC-Br. 86, Cabanatuan City. Neither was dela Cruz detained in Navotas which is the limit of respondent judge's territorial jurisdiction but at the PNP-CIG Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City. We cannot therefore concede to respondent's argument that he had not injured anybody, neither the handling trial court judge, the government, the private complainant nor the accused.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court may impose its authority upon erring judges whose actuations, on their face, would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law or misconduct.While the practice of granting bail (initial) not strictly in conformity with Rule 114 has been tolerated to a certain extent for the sake of securing the prompt release of the detained accused charged with bailable offenses, the regularity with which Judge Yaneza has resorted to this modus operandi and the zeal with which he has applied himself to the task is nothing short of remarkable. On the banal pretext that the bonding company "lacked material time to catch up" with the handling judge or the latter was no longer available since it was past office hours, respondent Judge would issue release orders without due regard for the rules.
When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority. In both instances, the judge's dismissal is in order. After all, faith in the administration of justice exists only if every party-litigant is assured that occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.