A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262 - Pantillo III vs. Canoy

Gaudencio Pantilo III, the complainant and brother of the homicide victim in Criminal Case No. 8072 (People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Luzon Melgazo), filed a complaint against Judge Victor A. Canoy of the RTC, Branch 29 in Surigao City.
The charges against Judge Canoy include gross ignorance of the law and/or procedures, grave abuse of authority, and appearance of impropriety in connection with the release of the accused.

On September 3, 2008, at about 5:00 p.m., Pantilo, accompanied by police officers Ronald C. Perocho and Santiago B. Lamanilao, Jr., attended the inquest proceedings at the City Prosecutor’s Office in Surigao City.
Later that day, around 8:00 p.m., Pantilo was informed by officer Perocho that Leonardo Luzon Melgazo, the accused, had been released from detention.
On September 4, 2008, Pantilo verified the information at the Surigao City Police Station.

The police logbook confirmed that Melgazo was released at approximately 6:30 p.m. on September 3, 2008, following the posting of a bail bond amounting to PhP 30,000.
The release was authorized by Chief of Police Supt. Ramer Perlito P. Perlas and was executed on Judge Canoy’s verbal order.

No copy of the Information had been filed by the City Prosecutor’s Office.
There was an absence of a written Order of Release, with only a verbal instruction provided to the police officers, accompanied by assurances that a written order would be forthcoming the next day.

On September 5, 2008, Leonardo Luzon Melgazo filed a Motion for the Release of his impounded vehicle as physical evidence in the case.

The motion was received and raffled by the Office of the Clerk of Court.
The Notice of Hearing indicated that the motion would be heard on the same day at 8:30 a.m., allegedly violating the three-day notice rule.

Issued an Order directing Assistant City Prosecutor Robert Gonzaga to submit comments on the motion within three days.
Granted Melgazo’s motion after receiving the prosecutor’s response, despite Pantilo’s opposition.

Pantilo filed a motion for inhibition against Judge Canoy, which was denied.
Subsequently, on November 3, 2008, Pantilo filed a formal letter-complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator, restating his charges and praying for Judge Canoy’s disbarment.

On January 5, 2009, the Court Administrator required Judge Canoy to comment on the complaint.
In his comment dated February 5, 2009, Judge Canoy admitted to the sequence of events:

He explained that after the inquest proceedings concluded around 5:00 p.m. on September 3, 2008, and with most clerks already having left, he proceeded to allow bail posting for Melgazo to avoid further delay, invoking the constitutional right to bail.
He claimed that this constituted a “constructive bail” since only the documentation was pending.
Judge Canoy maintained that his actions were taken in accordance with what seemed best at the moment, despite the procedural irregularities.

Additionally, he defended his Order dated September 8, 2008, regarding the release of Melgazo’s impounded vehicle, asserting that there was no deliberate disregard of rules.

On October 18, 2010, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez evaluated the case, finding that:

Judge Canoy failed to comply with the required documentation under Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
There was a clear deviation from the proper procedure for the granting of bail, including missing written application, certificate of deposit, written undertaking, and a formal release order.

The evaluation also noted another pending case against Judge Canoy (filed on September 3, 2009) for similar charges.
The Court Administrator recommended:

Re-docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter.
Imposing a fine of PhP 40,000 with a stern warning for any repetition of similar acts.

The Court ultimately found Judge Canoy guilty of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars under Sec. 9 and Sec. 11(b) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
The penalty imposed was a fine of PhP 11,000, accompanied by a stern warning that repetition of similar infractions would attract more severe penalties.

Whether Judge Canoy’s practice of verbally granting bail, without a formal written application or adherence to the required documentary procedures, violated the higher procedural standards prescribed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the concept of “constructive bail,” as invoked by Judge Canoy, is legally tenable within the established procedural framework.
Whether the absence of a written Order of Release and the subsequent irregularities (such as the expedited handling of motions without proper notice) constitute gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and an appearance of impropriety on the part of Judge Canoy.
Whether the procedural deviations in handling the release of the accused prejudice the rights guaranteed under the constitutional right to bail and the orderly administration of justice.