Title
Agulan, Jr. vs. Ferdez
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354
Decision Date
Apr 4, 2001
Judge fined P5,000 for mishandling cash bail, violating rules by retaining funds instead of depositing with authorized officials, despite complainant's withdrawal.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354)

Facts:

  1. Criminal Charges and Bail: Complainant Juanito Agulan, Jr. and his son Ian Agulan were charged with illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866. Respondent Judge Octavio A. Fernandez, then presiding over the MCTC-General M. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija, issued warrants of arrest and set bail at P120,000.00 each. Upon the police prosecutor's request, the bail was reduced to P36,000.00 per accused, and respondent Judge accepted a total of P72,000.00 as cash bail bond for both accused. He recalled the warrants and ordered their release on March 25, 1999.

  2. Allegations of Misappropriation: Complainant alleged that respondent Judge did not deposit the cash bail with the Clerk of Court, Teresita Esteban, who certified that no receipt was issued for the cash bonds. Complainant accused respondent Judge of misappropriating the funds.

  3. Respondent Judge's Defense: Respondent Judge admitted accepting the cash bail but denied misappropriation. He claimed he acted out of compassion, as it was nighttime and the Municipal Treasurer's Office was closed. He kept the money in his office's safety deposit box.

  4. Dismissal of Criminal Cases: The criminal cases against the Agulans were dismissed in February 2000. Complainant later withdrew his complaint after respondent Judge restituted the P72,000.00 (P36,000.00 in cash and P36,000.00 via personal check).

  5. Investigation Findings: The Office of the Court Administrator found that respondent Judge violated Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which specifies that cash bail bonds must be deposited with authorized officials (e.g., municipal treasurer). Respondent Judge failed to comply with this rule and kept the money in his office. The Investigating Justice recommended a fine of P2,000.00, but the Court increased the penalty to P5,000.00.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent Judge violated the rules on the acceptance and handling of cash bail bonds.
  2. Whether respondent Judge's actions constituted misconduct warranting administrative sanctions.
  3. Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant affects the administrative case.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found respondent Judge guilty of violating the rules on the handling of cash bail bonds. He was fined P5,000.00 and warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative case.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.