Facts:

On July 6, 1993, a sworn complaint was filed by Regional State Prosecutor Francisco Q. Aurillo, Jr. against Judges Getulio M. Francisco (Branch 6) and Pedro S. Espina (Branch 7), both judges of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City. The complaint alleged grave misconduct and serious impropriety regarding their actions in granting bail to accused individuals in two cases: Criminal Case No. 93-01-38, People vs. Cristeta Reyes, et al., for murder, and Criminal Case No. 93-01-39, People vs. Jane C. Go, for parricide. The complainant contended that both judges failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before allowing the accused to post bail and did so despite the prosecution's opposition, citing strong evidence of guilt against the accused.

The background of the cases grew contentious when Judge Francisco issued warrants of arrest for the accused on February 17, 1993, while fixing bail amounts at P100,000 each, contrary to the prosecution's recommendation of no bail due

...

Facts:

1. Complaint Filed: On 6 July 1993, Regional State Prosecutor Francisco Q. Aurillo, Jr. filed a sworn complaint against Judges Getulio M. Francisco and Pedro S. Espina of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City. The complaint alleged grave misconduct, impropriety, and abuse of authority in granting bail without an evidentiary hearing in two criminal cases:

   • Criminal Case No. 93-01-38 (People vs. Cristeta Reyes, et al., for Murder)
   • Criminal Case No. 93-01-39 (People vs. Jane C. Go, for Parricide).

2. Prosecution’s Opposition: The prosecution had recommended no bail, as the accused were charged with capital offenses. Complainant argued that the judges granted bail without notifying the prosecution or conducting a hearing, violating procedural due process.

3. Judge Francisco’s Actions:

   • On 17 February 1993, Judge Francisco issued warrants of arrest for the accused in both cases but fixed bail at P100,000.00 for each accused.
   • Complainant questioned the bail amounts, arguing that the prosecution was not notified of any motion to fix bail or of the order granting bail.
   • Judge Francisco claimed that, based on his examination of the records, the evidence against the accused was circumstantial and not strong, justifying the grant of bail.

4. Re-Raffle of Cases: The cases were re-raffled to Judge Espina’s sala after the prosecution filed a motion for Judge Francisco to inhibit himself. Complainant objected to the re-raffle, alleging bias on the part of Judge Espina, who had previously prohibited the complainant from conducting preliminary investigations in other cases.

5. Additional Allegations:

   • Complainant accused Judge Espina of fraternizing with a law firm in Tacloban City, creating a perception of bias.
   • In Criminal Case No. 93-04-197 (People vs. Salvador Padernal), Judge Espina allegedly allowed the accused to post bail without giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the application.

6. Comments Filed:

   • Judge Francisco filed his comment on 18 February 1994, reiterating his earlier explanation that he acted within his discretion.
   • Judge Espina filed his comment on 17 July 1993, stating that he merely took over the cases after the bails had been approved by Judge Francisco. He did not comment on the Padernal case.

7. OCA Findings: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that Judge Francisco’s actions constituted serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law. The OCA recommended disciplinary action against Judge Francisco but dismissed the allegations against Judge Espina for lack of evidence.

Issue:

1. Whether Judge Francisco committed grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law by granting bail without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without notifying the prosecution.
2. Whether Judge Espina committed impropriety by fraternizing with a law firm and by allegedly favoring the accused in the Padernal case.
3. Whether the judges violated procedural due process by granting bail in capital offenses without a hearing.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)