JOEY CUARESMA AND ABRAHAM CUARESMA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE RESTITUTO AGUILAR, RESPONDENT.

The facts show that in an Information dated November 15, 1991,
the Provincial Prosecutor of Occidental Mindoro, Gorgonio D. Olarte, charged
Florencio Banite with the murder of Daniel Acosta, a relative of herein
complainants. The Information, which
carried no recommendation for bail, was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2-648 in
Branch 44 of the RTC of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro presided over by the Honorable
Venancio M. Tarriela.

The accused Banite was arraigned on January 3, 1992 where he
pleaded not guilty. His case was set
for pre-trial and trial on February 24, 25 and 26, 1992. It appears, however, that on January 28,
1992, Prosecutor Olarte amended the Information against Banite to Homicide and
recommended a bail of P20,000.00, without leave of court. Judge Tarriela ordered Prosecutor Olarte to
explain his action considering that the accused Acosta had already been
arraigned.

On February 4, 1992, Mrs. Agripina Agbayari Zubiri, Supervising
Steno-Reporter IV at the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro, went to see the respondent judge, the Hon. Restituto L.
Aguilar, in his chambers. Respondent
judge is the Executive and Presiding Judge of Branch 45, RTC, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro. Mrs. Zubiri
informed the respondent judge that she was sent by Prosecutor Olarte to request
for the release of accused Banite on a bail of P20,000.00. All pertinent papers, including the Property
Bail Bond, the Order approving the bond and directing the release of the
accused, etc., were already prepared for the signature of the respondent
judge. On the same day, respondent
judge signed and issued the Order dated February 4, 1992 approving the property
bond, and the Order directing the annotation of said undertaking as lien with
the Register of Deeds.

On the strength of the above Orders, accused Banite was released.

Complainants, Joey and Abraham Cuaresma, charged respondent judge
with grave abuse of authority. They
claim that respondent judge has no right to order the release of Banite since
the latter’s case was being tried in the sala of Judge Tarriela. They also aver that the release of Banite
has endangered their lives. Respondent
judge justifies his action under Section 14(a), Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court. He also invokes good faith.

We find merit in the complaint.

The reliance of respondent judge on Section 14(a), Rule 114 is
misplaced. We quote said section:

“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 case against accused Banite was filed in Branch 44, presided
over by Judge Tarriela. Respondent
judge who presides in Branch 45, had no power to act on the request to release
on bail accused Banite. The record does
not show that at the time respondent judge ordered Banite’s release, Judge
Tarriela was absent or unavailable and could not have acted on the
request. It was also irregular for
respondent judge to entertain the request considering that it did not appear
that a formal motion had been filed by the accused to that effect. Indeed, respondent judge did not even
examine the records of the case as he merely signed the Orders allegedly
prepared by Prosecutor Olarte. His
indifference to duty prevented him from discovering that at the time he ordered
the release of accused Banite, the Information charging the latter with Murder
with no recommendation for bail had not been properly amended.

This Court has not been
wanting in its warnings that judges should endeavor to maintain at all times
the confidence and high respect accorded to those who wield the gavel of
justice. Circular No. 13, dated July 1,
1987, enjoins judges “to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with
the mandate of existing laws and the Code of Judicial Conduct that they be
exemplars in their communities and the living personification of justice and
the Rule of Law.” In Ramirez vs.
Corpus-Macandog (Adm. Matter No. R-359-RTJ, September 26, 1986, 144 SCRA 462),
this court stressed:

“Judges are
required to observe due care in the performance of their official duties. They are likewise charged with the knowledge
of internal rules and procedures, especially those which relate to the scope of
their authority. They are duty bound to
observe and abide by these rules and procedures, designed as they are, primarily
to ensure the orderly administration of justice.”

Respondent judge’s action shows such
lack of familiarity with our laws, rules and regulations as to undermine the public confidence in the integrity
of our courts.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent Judge Restituto Aguilar, Executive
Judge and Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro, is hereby ordered to pay a fine of two thousand pesos
(P2,000.00). Further, he is admonished
to exercise greater care and prudence in the performance of his official duties
for repetition of the same or similar act or omission in the future shall be
dealt with more severely by this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J. Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, and Vitug, JJ., concur.