Title
Supreme Court
Gacal vs. Infante
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845
Decision Date
Oct 5, 2011
Judge Infante granted bail to a murder accused without a hearing, relying solely on the prosecutor’s recommendation, leading to a Supreme Court ruling of gross ignorance of the law and a P20,000 fine.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845)

Background of the Case

The case arose when Judge Gregorio R. Balanag, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kiamba-Maitum issued a warrant of arrest for Faustino Ancheta on March 18, 2003, regarding a murder charge but did not recommend bail. Following his arrest warrant, there was a delay in Ancheta’s arrest due to his evading capture. The Provincial Prosecutor subsequently filed an information for murder in the RTC with a recommendation of bail, subsequently leading to the case being raffled to Judge Infante's Branch 38.

Judge Infante's Orders and Subsequent Actions

On April 23, 2003, Judge Infante issued two orders: one granting bail for P400,000.00 and another releasing Ancheta. On learning of these orders, Atty. Gacal petitioned for a reconsideration of the decision to grant bail. During the hearing held on April 29, 2003, Atty. Gacal claimed that the private prosecution lacked proper authorization under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Judge Infante directed the prosecution to submit a comment on the motion, which was not filed in a timely manner.

Legal and Procedural Issues

On May 21, 2003, Judge Infante denied Gacal's rebellion motion on procedural grounds, stating the lack of proper authorization of the private prosecutor and held the bail issue in abeyance pending comments from the public prosecutor. When the latter finally filed a comment on June 4, 2003, he maintained that the grant of bail was appropriate since the evidence did not warrant a strong case against Ancheta.

Complaint and Subsequent Proceedings

The complaint against Judge Infante for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and evident partiality culminated in administrative proceedings being filed by Atty. Gacal on August 5, 2003. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Supreme Court embarked on a detailed investigation, seeking an explanation from Judge Infante for his actions regarding bail.

Judge Infante’s Defense

In his defense, Judge Infante maintained that he did not grant a petition for bail per se, but merely approved the bail bond posted as per the provincial prosecutor’s recommendation, emphasizing that no application for bail was lodged by Ancheta. However, this interpretation misconstrued the necessity of a hearing for bail in cases involving serious offenses such as murder.

Legal Standards Governing Bail

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a bail hearing is mandatory for capital offenses or those punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence against the accused is str

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.