G.R. No. MTJ-96-1072. January 31, 1996.
DANIEL MAMOLO, SR., complainant, vs. JUDGE ROGELIO R. NARISMA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Daniel Mamolo Sr. sought an investigation against respondent Judge Rogelio R. Narisma of the MCTC, Bansalan-Magsaysay, Davao del Sur, for allegedly granting bail without a proper hearing to Antonio Balagot, an accused charged with murder. The judge had initially recommended no bail after a preliminary examination, finding the evidence of guilt strong. Balagot later filed a petition for bail. At the hearing, defense counsel informed the court that Balagot was ill and requested that the submission of the petition be dispensed with to allow hospitalization. Complainant alleged the judge granted a P150,000.00 bail bond without giving the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence on the strength of the evidence of guilt.
Respondent Judge asserted he approved the petition after a hearing where the prosecution, through 2nd Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Quinones, submitted the resolution to the court’s sound discretion. He denied any impropriety, noting the prosecution’s traverse was not filed and no appeal was taken from the bail order. He admitted only a single, brief encounter with defense counsel at a public eatery.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law or procedure in granting bail to an accused charged with a capital offense.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s evaluation that the judge disregarded procedural due process. A review of the hearing transcript revealed that only the amount of bail was discussed, with no questions propounded by the judge to verify the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. The prosecution’s deferential attitude or waiver does not excuse the judge’s peremptory duty to conduct a genuine hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
The Court, citing Borinaga v. Tamin, emphasized that the determination of whether evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion that may rightly be exercised only after evidence is submitted. The judge must give the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence and may ask clarificatory questions to ascertain the strength of the state’s evidence. The failure to adhere to this basic procedure deprived the prosecution of due process. A judge must exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Respondent Judge Rogelio R. Narisma was FINED P20,000.00 with a stern warning.