View full case

ANTONIO OCENAR v. JUDGE ODELON S. MABUTIN

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint against Judge Odelon Mabutin of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan, Samar. The complainant, Antonio Ocenar, accuses the judge of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. The complaint is based on the granting of bail to Raymund Monsanto, who was arrested for violation of Section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The complainant argues that Monsanto is not entitled to bail because the penalty for the offense is life imprisonment to death under Republic Act No. 9165. Another accused, Felix Bantugan, who was arrested for the same offense but with a smaller amount of shabu, was denied bail by the respondent. The complainant alleges that the granting of bail to Monsanto was due to his connection with Judge Sinforiano Monsanto, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar.

In response, the respondent denies the allegations and asserts that Monsanto's application for bail was properly heard and granted. He argues that Bantugan's bail was denied because he did not apply for it. Additionally, the respondent denies any favoritism towards Judge Monsanto, emphasizing their purely professional interactions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the grant of bail to accused Monsanto was proper.

  2. Whether the respondent judge showed partiality in granting bail to accused Monsanto and denying bail to accused Bantugan.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled that the grant of bail to accused Monsanto was proper. The respondent judge cited Rule 114, Sections 4 and 17(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to justify his action.

  2. The court found no merit in the allegation of partiality against the respondent judge. The reason for denying bail to accused Bantugan was that no bail was applied for. The fact of non-application for bail was attested by a certification issued by the Administrative Officer III of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Samar.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The court relied on Rule 114, Sections 4 and 17(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine the propriety of granting bail.

  • The court emphasized that the denial of bail to accused Bantugan was due to the fact that no bail was applied for, and not because of partiality on the part of the respondent judge.