FACTS:

The case involves the complaint filed by Pete M. Pico, the brother of Father Narciso M. Pico, who was shot and killed in January 1991. The Commission on Human Rights determined that rebel "returnees" were responsible for the murder. The Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Negros Occidental filed a murder charge against Eddie Villegas, recommending that no bail be granted. However, the respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest for Villegas and granted him bail without notice or hearing. Complainant Pico discovered that Villegas had been released on bail when he went to the court. Pico filed an administrative case against the respondent judge, alleging serious misconduct and grave abuse of discretion. The respondent judge admitted to granting bail without a hearing but claimed that he believed the accused would not flee. The Supreme Court found the respondent judge's actions inconsistent with the Code of Judicial Conduct and found him guilty of serious misconduct. It also required him to furnish proof of Villegas' death and warned him to exercise greater care in the future. The court also mentioned that if Villegas' death was true, the review of the release order would be unnecessary.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent Judge committed serious misconduct and grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the accused without notice, hearing, and even before the accused had been arrested or detained.

RULING:

1. Yes, respondent Judge committed serious misconduct and grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the accused without notice, hearing, and even before the accused had been arrested or detained. It is well-settled that an application for bail from a person charged with a capital offense must be set for hearing at which both the prosecution and the defense must be given a reasonable opportunity to prove whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. In this case, where the offense charged is murder and punishable by reclusion perpetua or death, respondent Judge's deliberate failure to set the application for bail for hearing effectively deprived the People of its right to due process. The grant of bail, absent any taking of evidence as to whether or not the guilt of the accused was strong, constituted arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical action. This conduct reflects either gross ignorance of the law or a cavalier disregard of its requirements. Respondent Judge's alleged impression that the probability of flight on the part of the accused was "practically nil," was not based on evidence of record. Furthermore, respondent Judge failed to diligently ascertain the whereabouts of the accused and whether he had jurisdiction over the body of the accused before considering the application for bail.

PRINCIPLES:

• A person applying for admission to bail must be in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty.

• An application for bail from a person charged with a capital offense must be set for hearing at which both the prosecution and the defense must be given a reasonable opportunity to prove whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

• Respondent Judges are required to act with competence, integrity, and independence and to behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.