4 Bantuas vs. Pangadapun

8/11/2019 4 Bantuas vs. Pangadapun

1/4

A.M. No. RTJ-98-1407 July 20, 1998

Sinal Bantuas, Yusop Bantuas, Saidalai Bantuas, and Mono!a B. Mad"asi#,complainants,

vs.

Jud$% Yusop& '. (an$adapun and Jud$% Santos B. Adion$, respondents.

MART)N*+, J.:

In a verified complaint dated October 17, 1995 1Judge Yusoph K. angadapun,!egional "rial #ourt, $ranch 1%, &ara'i #it( in his capacit( as )cting residing Judge,!"#, $ranch 11, &alabang, *anao del +ur and Judge +antos $. )diong, !"#, $ranch

, &ara'i #it( 'ere changed 'ith alleged gross misconduct relative to the granting ofbail to the accused in #riminal #ase -o. 11/0% entitled eople vs. -i2on &acapadoet. al. for &urder.

"he complainants herein are relatives of the late $ohare $antuas, 'ho 'as shot todeath allegedl( b( the accused in #riminal #ase -o. 11/0% filed before the sala ofrespondent Judge angadapun. $( virtue of the 'arrant of arrest issued against theaccused in the abovementioned case, accused -i2on &acapado 'as arrested anddetained on )ugust 31, 1990. #omplainants allege that after the arrest of the accusedthe sub4ect criminal case 'as not heard and no notice of hearing nor subpoenas 'ereissued in connection there'ith. "he( claim that the acused 'as allo'ed to post bail

'ithout the benefit of a hearing in the amount of 0%,%%%.%% as fi2ed b( respondent4udge Yusoph K. angadapun in his Order dated )pril 7, 1995 2granting the rgent&otion to 6i2 $ail filed b( accuseds counsel.

"he( further asseverate that in order to rectif( his unprocedural and un4ustified act offi2ing bail in a capital offense 'ithout a hearing, respondent Judge angadapunrevo8ed and set aside the uestionable order abovecited b( issuing on Jul( 39, 1995another order to that effect. 4"he case 'as calendared for hearing t'ice, but nothing'as done about the case because the accused had alread( been released on bail.

#omplainants li8e'ise implicate respondent Judge )diong in this alleged anomalous

granting of bail to the accused. )ccording to the complainants, Judge )diong orderedthe release of accused -i2on &acapado on Jul( 1, 1995 on the basis of a defectivepropert( bond posted b( bondsman :ad4i &ohammad &angondacan.

pon verification from the office of the !egister of ;eeds, complainants found out thatthe propert( bond 'hich 'as approved and accepted b( respondent Judge )diong, 'asnot filed and dul( registered in accordance 'ith the prescribed form as there 'as nodescription of the area, no "#" number and no current assessed value of the real


2/4

propert( involved. In addition, the propert( bond 'as not filed 'ith the !egister of;eeds for proper annotation. #omplainants further discovered that the propert( 'asalread( sub4ect of and used as bond in #ivil #ase -o. !"#3939%, !egional "rial#ourt, $ranch 1%, &ara'i #it(, *anao del +ur.

In his #omment dated &arch 10, 199


3/4

)lthough the rovincial rosecutor had interposed no ob4ection to the grant of bail to theaccused, respondent 4udge should have set the petition for bail for hearing. 14If theprosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an ob4ection to the motionfor bail, it is still mandator( for the court to conduct a hearing or as8 searching andclarificator( uestions. 16or even the failure of the prosecution to interpose an

ob4ection to the grant of bail to the accused 'ill not 4ustif( such grant 'ithout hearing.1

!espondent Judge angadapuns e2planation that his un'arranted and unproceduralgrant of bail 'as timel( remedied b( his subseuent issuance of an order revo8ing andsetting aside the former cannot be countenanced. It is 'ell 'orth noting that therevocator( order 'as made onl( on Jul( 19, 1995 or three months after the initiall(erroneous order of )pril 7, 1995 'hich 'as sought to be corrected. "hat he reali@ed hisfallacious granting of bail onl( after the lapse of three months is unfathomable.6undamental 8no'ledge of the la' and a reasonable understanding of recent

4urisprudence ought to have guarded respondent 4udge against the precipitate andun4ustified granting of bail or should have at least prompted him to invalidate the same

immediatel( thereafter.

=hether the accused 'as still detained or not at the time the revocator( order 'asmade is of no moment inasmuch as the administrative liabilit( of respondent Judgeangadapun had alread( attached 'hen he granted bail to an accused charged 'ith acapital offense. -either 'ill the seemingl( conflicting claims of the parties 'ith respect tothe date of respondent Judge )diongs release order negate the aforesaid culpabilit( ofrespondent Judge angadapun.

)s found b( the Office of the #ourt )dministrator AO#)B, in its &emorandum dated June3%, 199


4/4

*i8e'ise, he should have ta8en account of the fact that the same did not contain asummar( of prosecutorial evidence. )n order granting or refusing bail must contain asummar( of the evidence offered b( the prosecution. 21+ince the order had no recital ofan( evidence presented b( the prosecution nor a pronouncement that the evidence ofguilt of the accused 'as not strong, hence, the said order should not be sustained or

given an( semblance of validit(.22

nfortunatel(, he carelessl( disregarded the manifest irregularit( contained therein andfailed to reali@e that the bail bond should not have been approved in the first place.Indubitabl(, respondent 4udge sho'ed poor 4udgment and gross ignorance of basic legalprinciples. 2

!espondent 4udge )diong also did not contravene the allegation that the supportingpapers far the bail bond 'ere defective considering that the same 'ere not in theprescribed form. -either did he refute the allegation that the propert( offered 'as alsobeing used as bond in another case. ) 4udge cannot approve a bail band and order the

release of an accused 'ithout the submission of a valid bail bond.24

)ccordingl(, 'e find he respondent 4udges administrativel( liable for Ignorance of the*a' relative to their actuations in the granting of bail to the accused in #riminal #ase-o. 11/0%, !"#, $ranch 11, &alabang, *anao del -orte.

In vie' of the foregoing, Judge Yusoph K. angadapun of !"#, $ranch 1% &ara'i #it(and Judge +antos $. )diong of !"#, $ranch , &ara'i #it( are hereb( ordered to pa(a 6I-? of "=?-"Y ":O+)-; ?+O+ A3%,%%%.%%B each for ignorance of the *a'.

+O O!;?!?;.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur.

ellosillo and Panganiban, JJ., too! no part.

Documents

4 Bantuas vs. Pangadapun