BUENAVENTURA B. SUNGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CONCEPCION SALUD, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT COURT, AMULONG-IGUIG, CAGAYAN, RESPONDENT.

It was the imposition of a bail bond in the amount of P18,000.00
for the alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 583, the penalty for which
is prision mayor or a fine ranging from P5,000.00 to P10,000.00 or both, that
led to a verified letter-complaint from Buenaventura B. Sunga for grave abuse
of authority or, at the very least, ignorance of the law.  Complainant was accused in a criminal case
for unlawful ejectment.  Upon being
required to comment, respondent Judge denied such accu­sation and maintained
that considering the penalty of prision
mayor, the bail bond which he fixed at P18,000.00 could not be considered
excessive.  The matter was then referred
to Executive Judge Bonifacio Cacdac, Jr. of the Court of First Instance of
Cagayan, Branch V at Tuguegarao, for investigation, report and
recommendation.  He conducted such
investigation.  In his report, based
primarily on a motion to dismiss filed by the complainant himself mani­festing
lack of interest, he recommended the dismissal of the complaint.  He likewise could not find any justifica­tion
for the charge of excessive bail.  Court
Administrator Justice Lorenzo Relova, agreeing with the recommendation of
Deputy Court Administrator Romeo Mendoza, submitted to the Court his report “that respondent Judge
Concepcion Salud be found guilty of grave abuse of authority for which he
should be fined equivalent to one (1) month salary, not chargeable to his leave
credits and warned that a repetition of such infraction in the future will be
dealt with more severely.”^[1]

This Court pursuant to
the mandate that excessive bail should not be required feels that a more severe
penalty should be imposed.^[2] The members of the Judiciary were reminded
in Circular No. 1,^[3] dealing with the fixing of the bail bond in
criminal cases, of the authoritative doctrine in Villaseñor v. Abaño.^[4] The following factors are to be
considered:  “1. Ability of the
accused to give bail; 2. Nature of the offense; 3. Penalty for the offense
charged; 4. Character and reputation of the accused; 5. Health of the accused;
6. Character and strength of the evidence; 7. Probabi­lity of the accused
appearing in trial; 8. Forfeiture of other bonds; 9. Whether the accused was a
fugitive from justice when arrested; and 10. 
If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other
cases.”^[5]

This Court, in the later case of De la
Camara v. Enage^[6]
was equally explicit on the matter. 
Thus:  “Where, however, the
right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum
that is excessive.  So the Constitution
commands.  It is understandable why.  If there were no such prohibition, the right
to bail becomes meaningless.  It would
have been more forthright if no mention of such a guarantee were found in the
fundamental law.  It is not to be lost
sight of that the United States Constitution limits itself to a prohibition
against excessive bail.  As construed in
the latest American decision, ‘the sole permissible function of money bail is
to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and declared that “bail set at
a higher figure than an amount reasonably calcu­lated to fulfill this purpose
is excessive under the Eighth Amendment.” ‘ “^[7]   It should be stressed, contrary to the
thinking of Executive Judge Cacdac, that the mere assertion of lack of interest
to prosecute is not automatically followed by the matter being considered
closed.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is fined equivalent to two
(2) months salary, not chargeable to his leave credits.  He is warned that a repetition of a failure
to apply constitutional provisions would result in a much more severe
penalty.  Let a copy of this resolution
be spread on his record.

Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Memorandum of Justice Lorenzo Relova dated November 10, 1981, 2.

^[2]
According to the last sentence of Article IV, Section 18 of the
Constitution:  “Excessive bail shall
not be required.”

^[3]
Circular No. 1 dated February 9, 1981.

^[4]
L-23599, September 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 312, per Sanchez, J.

^[5]
Ibid, 317.

^[6]
L-32951-2, September 17, 1971, 41 SCRA 1.

^[7]
Ibid, 8.