A.M. OCA No. 03-1800-RTJ - Zuno vs. Cabebe

Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. ZuAo (Complainant) filed on January 15, 2003 a sworn complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator against Judge Alejandrino C. Cabebe (Respondent), then Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte.
The complaint charged Respondent with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross ignorance of the law, and partiality in Criminal Case No. 3950-18 (illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs).

Accused in the criminal case were five individuals, including three police officers and two civilians, who pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
The prosecution’s petition for change of venue (filed March 14, 2001; denied August 13, 2001; motion for reconsideration filed October 8, 2001) and the accused’s motion to dismiss for speedy trial (filed May 6, 2002) led to suspension of proceedings.

On November 5, 2002, Respondent motu proprio issued an order granting bail—P70,000 cash or P120,000 property bond for each accused (except Evelyn Manuel at P20,000 cash)—without any bail application, hearing, or notice to the prosecution.
The prosecution moved for reconsideration. Rather than rule thereon, Respondent inhibited himself upon realizing the irregularity.

In his comment, Respondent justified the bail order on the accused’s right to speedy trial, citing delays due to absences by the complainant and witnesses, and noted the prosecution did not object. He characterized the administrative complaint as harassment and invoked his forty years of service.
Respondent was compulsorily retired on March 26, 2003. The Deputy Court Administrator recommended a P20,000 fine for gross ignorance of the law.

On August 25, 2003, the Supreme Court re-docketed the matter as a regular administrative case and required the parties to submit for resolution on the records, which they did.
The case was heard and decided by the Third Division on November 26, 2004.

Whether Respondent violated Sections 8 and 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and established jurisprudence (e.g., Cortes v. Catral) by granting bail without notice or hearing.

Whether such procedural violation rises to the level of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross ignorance of the law, or partiality under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.