ANTONIO ADAPON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY, RESPONDENT.

Adapon versus Domagtoy

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Antonio Adapon against Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy, presiding judge of the Eleventh Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Santa Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte, for conduct unbecoming a judge. The complainant was a private complainant in three criminal cases pending before another court, and he charged that the respondent judge irregularly approved a bailbond and issued an order of release for an accused who had never been arrested. The case matters because it fixes two elementary rules every judge and every reviewee must know: bail presupposes custody of the law, and bail may be filed only with the court where the case is pending or with the courts that the Rules of Court expressly allow.

Procedural History

The complaint began as a letter-complaint by Antonio Adapon addressed to Executive Judge Melchor Libarnes of the Regional Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, who referred it to the respondent judge for comment. The respondent judge replied in a letter dated 14 May 1995, and Judge Libarnes forwarded the complaint and the reply to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the complaint to Judge Carlo Lozada of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City for investigation, report, and recommendation. The complainant then filed an amended complaint to clarify his allegations. Judge Lozada recommended that the respondent judge be absolved, finding that the complainant had not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The Supreme Court later designated Judge Melchor Libarnes to report whether the accused had actually been arrested, and his investigation showed that the accused was never arrested and the warrants were returned unserved. The Office of the Court Administrator then found that the respondent judge had no authority to issue the order of release and recommended a fine of ten thousand pesos. The matter was resolved by the Supreme Court as an administrative case.

Facts

Antonio Adapon, his wife Susie, and Bienvenida Navarro were the private complainants in three criminal cases against Pedrito Bondoc for falsification by omission, grave slander, and grave oral defamation, filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. On 4 May 1995, three warrants of arrest were issued against Bondoc, but the arresting officers could not serve them because they could not find him.

On 5 May 1995, the respondent judge issued an order of release for Bondoc on the ground that he had posted the necessary amount of bail for his temporary liberty. On 11 May 1995, the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Dapa certified that no bailbond had been filed by Bondoc as of that date. The complainant also alleged that the certification of the municipal treasurer on the payment of realty taxes on the properties posted as bond was issued only on 12 May 1995.

In his defense, the respondent judge claimed that the order of release was regularly issued, that the accused had been detained in the house of one Barsenio Mindaña, and that the police officers had decided not to arrest the accused because they doubted the validity of the warrants. The investigation of Judge Libarnes, based on the testimonies of the police officers, revealed that Bondoc was never arrested and that the warrants were returned unserved. The Office of the Court Administrator also noted the respondent judge's past indiscretion in a prior administrative case, where he had been suspended for six months after being found guilty of gross misconduct, inefficiency in office, and gross ignorance of the law.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge validly issued the order of release for an accused who had never been arrested or deprived of his liberty.
• Whether or not the respondent judge had jurisdiction to grant bail and issue the order of release in the criminal cases pending before another court.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court defines bail:

SECTION 1. Bail defined. - Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of a corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.

This provision bears on the case because it makes custody of the law a precondition to bail, and the accused here was never arrested or detained.

Section 14, paragraph (a) of Rule 114 states where bail may be filed:

Sec. 14. Bail, where filed. - (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.

This provision bears on the case because the criminal cases were pending in Dapa, and the respondent judge sat in Santa Monica-Burgos, with no showing that the Dapa judge was absent or unavailable or that the accused was arrested in Santa Monica-Burgos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge displayed gross ignorance of the law. Bail, by its clear definition, requires that a person must first be arrested or deprived of his liberty, because the purpose of bail is to release an accused from imprisonment or detention until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial. The Court said it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. The testimonies of the arresting officers confirmed that Bondoc was never arrested and never surrendered before the order of release was issued. The respondent judge therefore gravely abused his discretion.

On the second issue, the Court held that even assuming bail could be granted, it was not within the jurisdiction of the respondent judge to grant it. Bail may be granted by the court in which it is properly filed. The criminal cases were pending before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Dapa, and the order of release should have been issued, if at all, by that court, or in the absence or unavailability of Judge Jose Comon, by another branch of a municipal circuit trial court within Surigao del Norte. There was no proof that Judge Comon was absent or unavailable on 5 May 1995, and the arresting officers never testified that they tried to consult him. There was also no evidence that the accused was arrested in Santa Monica-Burgos. The respondent judge therefore granted bail and issued the order of release without jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. It reminded judges of lower courts of their role as the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and that they should diligently ascertain and conscientiously apply the law, unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion, or fear of criticism.

Doctrine

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. It presupposes that the person has been arrested or deprived of his liberty. It is incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. A judge who issues an order of release for an accused who has never been arrested is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and gravely abuses his discretion.

Bail may be filed only 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 with any regional trial court of that place, or, if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein. A judge who grants bail without jurisdiction is liable for abuse of authority.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority and ordered him to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: bail presupposes custody of the law, and it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Examiners use this case to test the definition of bail under Section 1 of Rule 114 and the rules on where bail may be filed under Section 14 of Rule 114.