A.M. No. MTJ-94-897 - Lardizabal vs. Reyes

The case originated with a verified complaint dated 25 October 1993, filed by minor Cynthia L. Lardizabal through her counsel, Atty. Luis L. Lardizabal.
The complaint was directed against Judge Oscar A. Reyes of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Tagudin-Suyo, Province of Ilocos Sur.
It charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law, alleging that his actions resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.

On 1 September 1993, the 12-year-old complainant filed a criminal complaint for rape against an individual identified as Dionisio Lozano, alias "Dioning".
Following the required preliminary investigation, during which the complainant and her witnesses were heard, Judge Reyes issued an order on 2 September 1993 with two distinct actions:

The order directed the arrest of the accused.
Motu proprio, without any application by the accused or a prior hearing, the bail of the accused was fixed at P80,000.00.

On 7 September 1993, the accused filed a motion seeking to reduce the bail from P80,000.00 to P20,000.00.
In response, without prior notice or conducting a hearing, Judge Reyes reduced the bail to P40,000.00.

Judge Reyes justified his actions by asserting that, after evaluating the evidence during the preliminary investigation, he concluded that the evidence was insufficient to deny bail.
He maintained that his decision was made in good faith, tempered by the principles of justice and mercy.
He further based his decision on the due process clause, which protects an accused against conviction without proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.

The complaint charged that the judge’s actions were irregular because the bail was fixed and subsequently reduced without affording the prosecution an opportunity to present objections.
It was contended that such haste in granting and reducing bail, particularly in a case involving a serious offense like rape, violated established legal procedures.

Whether Judge Reyes committed gross ignorance of the law by setting and subsequently reducing bail motu proprio, without following mandatory procedural safeguards.
Whether the failure to hold a hearing and allow the prosecution to present its evidence regarding the strength of its case against the accused constituted a denial of due process.

Whether the judge’s actions are consistent with the explicit rule requiring that bail in cases of serious offenses like rape be granted only after a formal motion is filed by the accused and a hearing is duly conducted.
Whether the notion of acting in good faith can justify bypassing the procedural requirement of hearing the prosecution’s side.

Whether the unconventional emphasis on protecting the rights of the accused, to the detriment of the victim’s rights, disrupts the balance of justice.
How the interests of both the victim and the accused are to be harmonized in criminal proceedings involving serious charges.