Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-01-1663)
Facts:
Maimona Manonggiring v. Judge Amer R. Ibrahim, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1663, November 15, 2002, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. The administrative matter arose from respondent Judge Amer R. Ibrahim's grant of bail to an accused in a criminal case pending before another branch of the Regional Trial Court.On January 17, 1995, Provincial Prosecutor Paca-ambung C. Macabando filed an information in the RTC of Lanao del Sur charging six persons with arson under Article 321(1) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613 (the criminal case). The printed information bore a typed recommendation "Bail Recommended: No Bail" that had been crossed out and superseded by a handwritten P120,000.00. The criminal case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2052-95 and raffled to Branch 10 of the RTC.
On September 4, 1996, the prosecution filed an amended information charging the accused under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7659, again recommending no bail. The prosecution then moved, on September 17, 1996, to cancel an earlier bail bond posted by one accused; Branch 10 granted that motion by order dated November 14, 1996. A warrant of arrest for among others Macaloling Mustapha issued in November 1996 from Branch 10.
Sometime in February 1999 Mustapha applied for bail and respondent Judge Ibrahim of RTC Branch 9 granted bail by Order of February 15, 1999. Complainant Maimona Manonggiring filed an administrative complaint alleging respondent had no authority to grant bail because the criminal case was pending before another branch and the offense was punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, making bail discretionary. Respondent defended that under Section 17(a), Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure bail may be filed in another branch if the judge where the case is pending is absent or unavailable; he said he relied on the arrest warrant and the original information and that his sheriff verified with the clerk's office that no amended information was on file.
This Court referred the complaint to the Court of Appeals for investigation and report; CA Associate Justice Candido V. Rivera recommended a P10,000 fine with a warning. The Court reviewed the record, found respondent failed to verify the amended information and that the facts alleged in the original information showed the offense was within Article 320 (destructive arson) as amended (punishable by reclusion perpetua to death...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent have authority to grant bail to Mustapha in Branch 9 when the criminal case was pending in Branch 10 and the offense was punishable by reclusion perpetua to death?
- Is respondent administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for granting that bail, and what san...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)