Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-01-1384)
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-01-1384)
Facts:
Rasmia U. Tabao v. Acting Presiding Judge Acmad T. Barataman, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1384 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-970-MTJ), April 11, 2002, Supreme Court First Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Rasmia U. Tabao, the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 9106 (People v. Samsodin M. Tabao) for abandonment of a minor, filed an affidavit-complaint charging respondent Acmad T. Barataman, then acting presiding judge of the Marawi City MTCC, Branch 1, with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion for granting a motion for release on recognizance. On July 16, 1998 respondent issued an order granting a motion for bail on recognizance filed by the accused’s father, Hadji Yusoph Tabao; a prosecution motion to cancel that bail was denied in an Order dated June 30, 1999.
Complainant alleged multiple defects in the bail-on-recognizance proceeding: the motion was filed and supported by the father rather than the accused; the accused did not sign the sworn statement required by law; the prosecutor was not furnished a copy and no hearing was conducted; and the accused, being a certified public accountant operating a transport business, could have posted cash bail. Respondent answered that abandonment is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, that bail-on-recognizance need not be discussed where the court could immediately arraign and try the case, and that the court could appoint the father as custodian under Section 15, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
The Court Administrator submitted a memorandum (Nov. 6, 2001) finding respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommending a fine of P20,000.00, emphasizing that (a) R.A. No. 6036 requires the accused himself to sign the sworn statement, and (b) release on recognizance is allowed only where the accused has shown inability to post bail. The Office of the Court Administrator also noted that bail cannot be granted before the court acquires custody of the accused. The Supreme Court First Division adopted the OCA’s findings and imposed the recommended fine with warning.
The matter reached the Supreme Court as an administrative complaint docketed under the Court’s administrative matter number cited above; the decision was rendered by the First Division with Puno, J. as ponente.
Issues:
- Is respondent administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion for granting bail on recognizance?
- Did the grant of bail on recognizance violate R.A. No. 6036 (Sections 1–2) by failing to secure the accused’s own sworn statement and by ignoring the requirement that release on recognizance be limited to those unable to post bail?
- Was the grant of bail premature because the accused was still at large and the court had not yet acquired custody, rendering the bail order improper under Section 15, Rule 114 and established precedent?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)