A.M. No. MTJ-05-1598 - Bitoon vs. Toledo-Mupas

A complaint was filed on September 17, 2001, against Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas of the Municipal Trial Court of Dasmariñas, Cavite.
The complaint charged the judge with (a) gross ignorance of the law, (b) manifest bias and partiality, and (c) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On August 23, 2001, complainants Leonora Bitoon, Florencio Cantada, Anita Mendoza, and Cael Glorioso filed three criminal complaints (Criminal Cases Nos. 01-1485, 01-1486 and 01-1487) for preliminary investigation.
The charges pertained to syndicated estafa under Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1689.
The scheme involved accused individuals, representing the Rapasedala Parents and Community Association Phase I and Phase II, Inc., who allegedly misled the complainants into purchasing lots by promising discounts on lands owned by the association.
After installment payments were made by the complainants, it was discovered that the association did not own the purported lands, resulting in misappropriation of funds.

On August 24, 2001, respondent Judge Toledo-Mupas issued a warrant of arrest against the accused, recommending no bail.
Accused Eva Malihan, a Barangay Kagawad, was arrested and committed to the municipal jail, although complaints later alleged that she was not adequately confined.
Subsequent to the arrest, complainants filed a motion seeking the transfer of Malihan to a more secure detention facility on August 28, 2001.
The motion was allegedly delayed by the judge, with claims that political influences (notably from Sangguniang Bayan member Valeriano Encabo and Mayor Elpidio Barzaga, Jr.) affected her decision-making.
On September 2, 2001, Malihan filed an Urgent Petition for Bail. Although set for hearing, no actual hearing took place; instead, the judge ordered the filing of a comment/opposition and subsequently granted the petition on September 14, 2001.
Allegations were raised that the judge might have informed the accused of the impending resolution in advance and exercised undue influence by granting bail without a proper evidentiary hearing.

Shortly after, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of sufficient evidence for manifest bias and partiality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration on September 13, 2002, arguing that the complaint should also include the charge of gross ignorance of the law, highlighting the improper granting of bail and the unauthorized change in the designation of the crime.
On June 28, 2004, the Court directed the judge to comment on the motion, and by March 7, 2005, the OCA submitted its compliance, finding the respondent liable for gross ignorance of the law and manifest bias and partiality.
The records also revealed previous instances where respondent Judge Toledo-Mupas was penalized for similar acts of judicial misconduct, including fines and suspension for gross ignorance of the law and failures in following procedural rules.

Whether the respondent committed gross ignorance of the law in her conduct during the preliminary investigation by:

Changing the designation of the crime from a non-bailable offense (syndicated estafa) to a bailable one (simple estafa) without proper authority.
Granting bail without a hearing, thereby neglecting the fundamental requirement of evaluating the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

Allegedly being influenced by external political pressures.
Deliberately delaying action on the motion for transferring the accused to a proper detention facility.

Whether the additional allegations regarding her conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were sufficiently established with competent proof.