View full case

EVELYN DE AUSTRIA v. JUDGE ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

FACTS:

Complainant Evelyn De Austria filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Orlando D. Beltran, Acting Presiding Judge of Branch IV of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Complainant alleged "gross ignorance of the law and/or negligence, and manifest partiality" on the part of the respondent in Criminal cases No. 6263, 6264, and 6315.

The complainant's siblings, Evangeline and Eduardo De Austria, were killed on September 3, 1993, allegedly by Tomas Bariuan. Bariuan was charged with double murder and frustrated murder. Preliminary investigation was conducted, and no bail was recommended. However, Bariuan was later allowed to post bail in the amount of P200,000.00 after filing a petition for bail.

The Municipal Trial Court of Tuguegarao found that Bariuan probably committed double murder and forwarded the case records to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. The provincial prosecutor filed two separate informations for murder against Bariuan. Bariuan filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest, stating that he had already posted bail. The motion was denied, and the court ruled that Bariuan's earlier bail was only for the complex crime of double murder, not for the two separate murders as filed by the provincial prosecutor.

Bariuan filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for joint trial, which were granted. Respondent Judge Aquino ruled that the motion for reconsideration should be resolved by Branch IV, presided over by respondent Judge Beltran.

Bariuan subsequently filed a motion for substitution and reduction of bail bond, claiming that he was granted bail in the three criminal cases and that the bail bond had expired. Respondent judge granted the motion and reduced the bail amount to P50,000.00 for each case.

The public prosecutor filed a motion for the immediate issuance of a warrant of arrest against Bariuan, noting that no bail had been recommended for one of the murder cases and no bail had been posted for the frustrated murder case. The respondent judge ruled that there was no need for another warrant of arrest because of the standing warrant against Bariuan. The bail bond previously approved was cancelled, and Bariuan surrendered to the police.

Complainant filed the administrative complaint, alleging that the order of release dated August 16, 1996, was irregular since Bariuan had not yet posted bail on that date, and that the order had not become final and executory. Complainant also claimed that respondent judge was negligent in granting a reduction of bail when no bail was recommended for one of the murder cases and the motion for reconsideration of the denial of Bariuan's motion to quash was still pending.

Respondent judge stated that he was unaware of the pending motion for reconsideration and that the trial prosecutor himself asked for the reduction of bail. He denied exhibiting manifest partiality and claimed that if he erred, it was without corrupt motive or improper consideration. He requested the court to consider the defense of good faith and absence of malice in his case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for exhibiting manifest partiality in favor of Bariuan.

  2. Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for issuing the order of release without requiring the submission of proper documents.

  3. Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for authorizing the acceptance of a cash bond by an unauthorized person.

  4. Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for failing to comply with the requirements of Section 14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court.

  5. Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for issuing an order of release despite the insufficiency of the amount deposited as bail.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for exhibiting manifest partiality in favor of Bariuan. The respondent judge admitted to signing the two orders of release and acknowledging the posting of the cash bonds. The records also showed that Bariuan was released from detention on August 16, 1996, after posting bail. The respondent judge's claim of being unaware of the first order of release and his alleged instruction to disregard it were found to be unbelievable. The respondent judge's actions were deemed to demonstrate manifest partiality in favor of Bariuan.

  2. Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for issuing the order of release without requiring the submission of proper documents. The respondent judge admitted to not requiring the submission of a proper certificate of cash deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the rules. This failure on the part of the respondent judge constituted a violation of Section 2, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court.

  3. The respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and conclusion of Justice Buzon, which are supported by the records and are fully grounded on the pertinent Rules of Court. The respondent judge's defense was considered flimsy and was unable to withstand the damning evidence against him. It was established that the respondent judge authorized an unauthorized person to accept a cash bond, failed to comply with the requirements for posting bail, and issued an order of release despite the insufficiency of the bail amount. These acts constitute gross and patent violations of the law and the rules, demonstrating the respondent judge's gross ignorance of the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives, or improper considerations are defenses that a judge charged with ignorance of the law can rely on. However, in cases of manifest partiality, these defenses are not applicable. (Principle of Good Faith and Absence of Malice)

  • Judges may be administratively sanctioned if they display manifest partiality in favor of a party. (Doctrine of Manifest Partiality)

  • Judges must require the submission of proper documents, such as a certificate of cash deposit and a written undertaking, in issuing orders of release. Failure to do so may result in administrative liability. (Doctrine of Compliance with Rules in Issuing Orders of Release)

  • Judges may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision as long as the error is not gross or patent, malicious, deliberate, or in evident bad faith.

  • Failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law for which no one, not even a judge, may be excused.