View full case

FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL

FACTS:

A sworn letter complaint was filed against Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan, alleging Gross Ignorance of the Law. The complaint accuses Judge Catral of granting bail in murder cases without holding a hearing. It also claims that he reduced the bail bond for a case of Illegal Possession of Firearm without conducting a hearing or advancing the case. Moreover, it asserts that he granted a low bail bond for a homicide case involving a Barangay Captain connected to a pending murder case. Lastly, it states that he acquitted a person of concubinage without basis, with rumors circulating about his wife visiting the acquitted person's house. Judge Catral denies the charges and explains each accusation.

On September 9, 1996, the respondent judge submitted an additional comment, informing the Office of the Court Administrator that the case referred to in the complainant's letter has already been dismissed by Judge Virgilio Alameda. The respondent judge argues that despite the reduction of bail bonds, the accused remained detention prisoners due to their failure to post bail. He further argues that the evidence against the accused was weak, and the complaining witnesses did not appear during the hearings. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the complaint, stating that there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the respondent judge. However, the complainant disagrees, asserting that bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of the case, and reasonable notice and hearing should be given to the prosecutor. The complainant alleges that the respondent judge granted bail to an accused charged with murder without conducting a hearing to determine the strength of the evidence against the accused.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not a hearing is required to determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong in granting or reducing bail.

  2. Whether or not the respondent judge erred in granting bail to the accused without conducting a hearing.

  3. Whether the respondent judge erred in granting bail to the accused without conducting a hearing or determining the strength of the evidence of guilt.

  4. Whether the respondent judge's reliance on the prosecutor's recommendation and the affidavits and sworn statements of the witnesses was sufficient to grant bail.

  5. Whether the respondent judge's failure to include a summary of the evidence for the prosecution in the order granting bail is a violation of procedural due process.

  6. Whether the respondent judge's grant of bail to the accused who have yet to be arrested is valid.

  7. Whether the respondent judge's reduction of the recommended bail amount in Criminal Case No. 11250 for Illegal Possession of Firearm was justified.

  8. Whether the amount of bail granted in Criminal Case No. 08-915 for homicide was appropriate.

  9. Whether there is evidence to support the allegation that the acquittal of Jimmy Siriban by the respondent judge was tainted with irregularity.

  10. Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting bail without conducting a hearing.

RULING:

  1. Yes, a hearing is required to determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong in granting or reducing bail. The court must conduct a hearing or ask searching questions, even if the prosecution does not adduce evidence or fails to object to the motion for bail. This is in accordance with the ruling in Inocencio Basco v. Judge Leo M. Rapatalo.

  2. Yes, the respondent judge erred in granting bail to the accused without conducting a hearing. The judge is mandated to conduct a summary hearing to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. The judge should not speculate on the outcome of the trial or the strength of the evidence but should rely on strong evidence of guilt or the lack thereof. The failure to conduct a hearing and the lack of a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution in the orders granting bail is a violation of the proper procedure in granting bail.

  3. Yes, the respondent judge erred in granting bail without conducting a hearing or determining the strength of the evidence of guilt.

  4. No, the respondent judge's reliance on the prosecutor's recommendation and the affidavits and sworn statements of the witnesses was not sufficient to grant bail.

  5. Yes, the respondent judge's failure to include a summary of the evidence for the prosecution in the order granting bail is a violation of procedural due process.

  6. No, the grant of bail to the accused who have yet to be arrested is not valid.

  7. The reduction of the recommended bail amount in Criminal Case No. 11250 for Illegal Possession of Firearm was justified.

  8. The amount of bail granted in Criminal Case No. 08-915 for homicide was appropriate.

  9. There is no evidence to support the allegation that the acquittal of Jimmy Siriban by the respondent judge was tainted with irregularity.

  10. Yes, the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. He failed to follow the duties of a trial judge in case an application for bail is filed, such as notifying the prosecutor of the hearing, conducting a hearing regardless of the prosecution's refusal to present evidence, deciding on the strength of the evidence, and denying the application if the guilt of the accused is strong. The respondent judge is ordered to pay a fine of P20,000 with a warning of more severe consequences for similar acts in the future.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A summary hearing is a brief and speedy method of receiving and considering evidence of guilt for purposes of bail.

  • The court should not try the merits of the case or speculate on the outcome of the trial during a bail hearing.

  • A hearing is required to determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong, even if the prosecution does not adduce evidence or fails to object to the motion for bail.

  • The court must rely on strong evidence of guilt or the lack thereof in granting or reducing bail.

  • The determination of whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, and such discretion can only be exercised after the evidence is submitted to the court at a hearing.

  • The court is not bound by the recommendation of the prosecutor and must independently evaluate the evidence of guilt.

  • The court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution to ensure procedural due process.

  • The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of their liberty.

  • The amount of bail granted should be guided by the purpose of securing the appearance of the accused to answer charges brought against them.

  • Trial judges are expected to discharge their duties assiduously, including complying with the rules and principles involving bail.

  • Judges should have more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; they should be conversant with basic legal principles.

  • Faith in the administration of justice can only be engendered if litigants are convinced that judges have a good grasp of legal principles.