November 1981 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > November 1981 Decisions >
A.M. No. 2205-MJ November 19, 1981 - BUENAVENTURA B. SUNGA v. CONCEPCION SALUD:
EN BANC
[A.M. No. 2205-MJ. November 19, 1981.]
BUENAVENTURA B. SUNGA, Complainant, v. JUDGE CONCEPCION SALUD, Municipal Circuit Court, Amulong-Iguig, Cagayan, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Respondent judge was charged with grave abuse of authority or ignorance of the law for imposing upon the complainant, the accused in a criminal case for unlawful ejectment, a bail bond in the amount of P18,000.00 where the imposable penalty for violation of P.D. No. 583 is only prision mayor or a fine ranging from P5,000.00 — P10,000.00 or both. In his comment, he maintained that such sum could not be considered excessive. Executive Judge Bonifacio Cacdac, Jr. of the CFI of Cagayan, Branch V, to whom the matter was referred for investigation and report, recommended the dismissal of the complaint, based on the complainant’s lack of interest in pursuing the case and for lack of any justification for the charge. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted to the Court its report recommending that respondent Judge be found guilty of grave abuse of authority for which he should be fined equivalent to one month salary with a warning that a repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely.
The Supreme Court, considering the constitutional prohibition against excessive bail and decided cases explicitly recognizing the right to bail which should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive, imposed upon the respondent a more severe penalty of fine equivalent to two months salary not chargeable to his leave credits with the warning that a repetition of a failure to apply constitutional provisions would result in a much more severe penalty.
The Supreme Court, considering the constitutional prohibition against excessive bail and decided cases explicitly recognizing the right to bail which should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive, imposed upon the respondent a more severe penalty of fine equivalent to two months salary not chargeable to his leave credits with the warning that a repetition of a failure to apply constitutional provisions would result in a much more severe penalty.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO BAIL; FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL. — The following factors are to be considered in the fixing of the bail bond in criminal cases. 1. Ability of the accused to give bail; 2. Nature of the offense; 3. Penalty for the offense charged; 4. Character and reputation of the accused; 5. Health of the accused; 6. Character and strength of the evidence; 7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial; 8. Forfeiture of other bonds; 9. Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and 10. If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCESSIVE BAIL PROHIBITED. — Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive. So the Constitution commands. It is understandable why. If there were no such prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BAIL TO ASSURE ACCUSED’S PRESENCE AT TRIAL. — The sole permissible function of money bail is to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is excessive.
4. ID.; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES; DISMISSAL THEREOF DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW WITH COMPLAINANT’S LACK OF INTEREST TO PROSECUTE THE CASE. — The mere assertion of lack of interest to prosecute an administrative complaint against a judge is not automatically followed by the matter being considered closed.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FIXING OF EXCESSIVE BAIL, A GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY; CASE AT BAR. — For fixing bail of Pl8,000.00 for the violation of P.D. No. 583 which only imposes a penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from P5,000.00 — P10,000.00, a judge is guilty of grave abuse of authority subject to a fine equivalent to two months salary, not chargeable to his leave credits with a warning that a repetition of his failure to apply constitutional provisions would result in a much more severe penalty.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCESSIVE BAIL PROHIBITED. — Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive. So the Constitution commands. It is understandable why. If there were no such prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BAIL TO ASSURE ACCUSED’S PRESENCE AT TRIAL. — The sole permissible function of money bail is to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is excessive.
4. ID.; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES; DISMISSAL THEREOF DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW WITH COMPLAINANT’S LACK OF INTEREST TO PROSECUTE THE CASE. — The mere assertion of lack of interest to prosecute an administrative complaint against a judge is not automatically followed by the matter being considered closed.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FIXING OF EXCESSIVE BAIL, A GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY; CASE AT BAR. — For fixing bail of Pl8,000.00 for the violation of P.D. No. 583 which only imposes a penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from P5,000.00 — P10,000.00, a judge is guilty of grave abuse of authority subject to a fine equivalent to two months salary, not chargeable to his leave credits with a warning that a repetition of his failure to apply constitutional provisions would result in a much more severe penalty.
R E S O L U T I O N
FERNANDO, J.:
It was the imposition of a bail bond in the amount of P18,000.00 for the alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 583, the penalty for which is prision mayor or a fine ranging from P5,000.00 to P10,000.00 or both, that led to a verified letter-complaint from Buenaventura B. Sunga for grave abuse of authority or, at the very least, ignorance of the law. Complainant was accused in a criminal case for unlawful ejectment. Upon being required to comment, respondent Judge denied such accusation and maintained that considering the penalty of prision mayor, the bail bond which he fixed at P18,000.00 could not be considered excessive. The matter was then referred to Executive Judge Bonifacio Cacdac, Jr. of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, Branch V at Tuguegarao, for investigation, report and recommendation. He conducted such investigation. In his report, based primarily on a motion to dismiss filed by the complainant himself manifesting lack of interest, he recommended the dismissal of the complaint. He likewise could not find any justification for the charge of excessive bail. Court Administrator Justice Lorenzo Relova, agreeing with the recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Romeo Mendoza, submitted to the Court his report "that respondent Judge Concepcion Salud be found guilty of grave abuse of authority for which he should be fined equivalent to one (1) month salary, not chargeable to his leave credits and warned that a repetition of such infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely." 1
This Court pursuant to the mandate that excessive bail should not be required feels that a more severe penalty should be imposed. 2 The members of the Judiciary were reminded in Circular No. 1, 3 dealing with the fixing of the bail bond in criminal cases, of the authoritative doctrine in Villaseñor v. Abaño. 4 The following factors are to be considered: "1. Ability of the accused to give bail; 2. Nature of the offense; 3. Penalty for the offense charged; 4. Character and reputation of the accused; 5. Health of the accused; 6. Character and strength of the evidence; 7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial; 8. Forfeiture of other bonds; 9. Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and 10. If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases." 5 This Court, in the later case of De la Camara v. Enage 6 was equally explicit on the matter. Thus: "Where, however, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive. So the Constitution commands. It is understandable why. If there were no such prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless. It would have been more forthright if no mention of such a guarantee were found in the fundamental law. It is not to be lost sight of that the United States Constitution limits itself to a prohibition against excessive bail. As construed in the latest American decision, `the sole permissible function of money bail is to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and declared that "bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is excessive under the Eight Amendment." 7 It should be stressed, contrary to the thinking of Executive Judge Cacdac, that the mere assertion of lack of interest to prosecute is not automatically followed by the matter being considered closed.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is fined equivalent to two (2) months salary, not chargeable to his leave credits. He is warned that a repetition of a failure to apply constitutional provisions would result in a much more severe penalty. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on his record.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
This Court pursuant to the mandate that excessive bail should not be required feels that a more severe penalty should be imposed. 2 The members of the Judiciary were reminded in Circular No. 1, 3 dealing with the fixing of the bail bond in criminal cases, of the authoritative doctrine in Villaseñor v. Abaño. 4 The following factors are to be considered: "1. Ability of the accused to give bail; 2. Nature of the offense; 3. Penalty for the offense charged; 4. Character and reputation of the accused; 5. Health of the accused; 6. Character and strength of the evidence; 7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial; 8. Forfeiture of other bonds; 9. Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and 10. If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases." 5 This Court, in the later case of De la Camara v. Enage 6 was equally explicit on the matter. Thus: "Where, however, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive. So the Constitution commands. It is understandable why. If there were no such prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless. It would have been more forthright if no mention of such a guarantee were found in the fundamental law. It is not to be lost sight of that the United States Constitution limits itself to a prohibition against excessive bail. As construed in the latest American decision, `the sole permissible function of money bail is to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and declared that "bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is excessive under the Eight Amendment." 7 It should be stressed, contrary to the thinking of Executive Judge Cacdac, that the mere assertion of lack of interest to prosecute is not automatically followed by the matter being considered closed.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is fined equivalent to two (2) months salary, not chargeable to his leave credits. He is warned that a repetition of a failure to apply constitutional provisions would result in a much more severe penalty. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on his record.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Memorandum of Justice Lorenzo Relova dated November 10, 1981, 2.
2. According to the last sentence of Article IV, Section 18 of the Constitution: "Excessive bail shall not be required."cralaw virtua1aw library
3. Circular No. 1 dated February 9, 1981.
4. L-23599, September 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 312, per Sanchez, J.
5. Ibid, 317.
6. L-32951-2, September 17, 1971, 41 SCRA 1.
7. Ibid, 8.
