ROAN I. LIBARIOS, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE ROSARITO F. DABALOS, RESPONDENT.

Libarios versus Dabalos

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Roan Libarios, for and on behalf of his client Mariano Corvera, Junior, against Judge Rosarito Dabalos of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City. The complaint charges the judge with grave ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, gross misconduct, and partiality, arising from his order in a murder case that fixed bail for two accused without any hearing. The case matters because it draws the line between an erroneous judgment, which a judge may render in good faith and cannot be disciplined for, and gross ignorance of a basic procedural rule, which is subject to disciplinary action.

Procedural History

The complainant first went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, assailing the judge's order of 8 December 1988. The Court of Appeals issued a restraining resolution, and later rendered a decision setting aside that order as issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It declared the warrants of arrest and the bail bonds void, ordered the court of origin to issue and serve new warrants, and ordered a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt against the two accused was strong. That decision became final and executory. The present case is an original administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court against the respondent judge.

Facts

On 10 March 1988, former Mayor Mariano Corvera, Senior was shot by Pablo Macapas inside the courtroom of Judge Dabalos, after a hearing in a frustrated murder case in which Corvera, Senior was the private complainant and Mayor Tranquilino Calo, Junior appeared as counsel for Macapas. A murder charge was filed against Macapas, Calo, Junior, Calo's driver-bodyguard Belarmino Allocod, and other John Does. The investigating fiscal found a prima facie case for murder, but a motion for reconsideration delayed the filing of the information. A temporary restraining order briefly stopped the fiscal from acting, and before the motion could be resolved, the investigating fiscal was himself gunned down. The acting city fiscal eventually affirmed the finding of a prima facie case, and an information carrying a no bail recommendation was filed, docketed as Criminal Case Number 3464.

The first information was withdrawn because it had been signed by the fiscal who was already dead at the time of its filing. A new information, again with a no bail recommendation, was filed but without the necessary supporting affidavits and papers, and the case was erroneously assigned to the same branch. The accused moved to dismiss and opposed the issuance of a warrant of arrest without bail, and their motion was set for hearing on 15 December 1988.

On 6 and 8 December 1988, Corvera, Junior and his sympathizers staged a rally demanding the immediate arrest of the accused, and afterwards went to see the respondent judge in his chamber to reiterate that demand. The judge then issued an order directing the raffle of the case with due notice to the parties, and, without any prior hearing, in the same order directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest and fixed bail for Calo, Junior and Allocod at 50,000 pesos each, with no bail for Macapas. He justified the bail on the ground that the two were not charged as co-principals by cooperation or inducement and that the evidence of guilt against them was merely circumstantial. The two posted bail the next day and were released.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for grave ignorance of the law in fixing bail for accused charged with a capital offense without conducting a hearing.
• Whether or not the respondent judge's close association with one of the accused required him to refrain from acting on the bail of that accused in order to preserve judicial impartiality.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as invoked by the complainant, provides:

No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

This provision bears on the case because it makes the strength of the evidence of guilt the decisive question, and that question can only be resolved after a hearing.

Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, cited by the Court, provides:

A judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

This provision bears on the case because the Court used it to measure the judge's conduct against the demands of diligence and impartiality.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the judge was liable for gross ignorance of the law. It laid down the governing rule: in cases where a person is accused of a capital offense, the trial court must conduct a hearing in a summary proceeding, to allow the prosecution an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence it may desire to produce to prove that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong, before resolving the issue of bail. Failure to conduct a hearing before fixing bail amounted to a violation of due process. Irrespective of the judge's opinion that the evidence of guilt was not strong, the law and settled jurisprudence demanded a hearing before bail was fixed, if bail was justified at all. The Court rejected the argument that the rule applies only where the accused is already in custody, and held that the rally staged by the complainant and his sympathizers was no sufficient excuse for the unjustified haste of fixing bail without a hearing.

On the second issue, the Court held that, considering the judge's close association with Calo, Junior as a former employee of the accused, prudence and regard for his position demanded that he refrain from fixing that accused's bail and from concluding that the evidence against him was merely circumstantial, in order to avoid any doubt as to his judicial impartiality. He should have waited for the raffle and allowed the judge to whom the case was actually raffled to resolve the issue of bail. A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so in a manner free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.

Doctrine

A judge cannot be held administratively liable for an erroneous judgment rendered in good faith, but good faith is negated by the circumstances on record. While judges should not be disciplined for occasional mistakes or errors of judgment, they must be conversant with basic legal principles. In every case a judge must ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. Before fixing bail for a person charged with a capital offense, the court must conduct a summary hearing and give the prosecution an opportunity to show that the evidence of guilt is strong; failure to do so violates due process and constitutes gross ignorance of the law. And where a judge has a close association with an accused, he must recuse himself from acting on that accused's bail to avoid any doubt as to his impartiality.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent judge administratively liable and imposed on him a fine of 20,000 pesos, with a warning to exercise more care and diligence in the performance of his duties, and that the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in capital offenses, no bail may be fixed without a hearing, and failure to hold that hearing is gross ignorance of the law. Examiners use this case in judicial ethics and criminal procedure to test the good faith exception for erroneous judicial acts and the mandatory summary hearing on bail.