ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. MTJ-00-1251. June 21, 2000]

VICTOR CHUA vs. JUDGE WILFREDO DAGATAN, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21 2000.

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1251 (Victor Chua vs. Judge Wilfredo Dagatan, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Mandaue City, Branch 3.)

Victor Chua is the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 17740-17752 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 filed by a certain Maximo Yu. Herein complainant Victor Chua filed the instant complaint charging respondent Judge Wilfredo Dagatan of the MTCC, Branch 3, Mandaue City with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion relative to said criminal cases. Complainant alleges that on July 27, 1997, while the cases were pending before the Prosecutor's Office, he redeemed the checks by paying in full the value thereof. On that day, Maximo Yu executed an affidavit of desistance which was subscribed and sworn to before Prosecutor Maximo Perez, the prosecutor assigned to the case. Complainant Chua claims that Prosecutor Perez failed to inform him and Yu that Informations for thirteen (13) counts of violation of BP 22 were already filed in court. Consequently, a warrant for his arrest was issued by respondent Judge who fixed the amount of bail at P736,000.00 for 13 cases.

Complainant contends that the bail recommended for the 13 counts of violation of BP 22 should only be P26,000.00 at the most and that respondent judge, in recommending a higher amount ignored Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that excessive bail shall not be required. Complainant charges respondent judge with "abuse of discretion tantamount to Gross Ignorance of the Law" specifically of the D.O.J. Circular No. 4 (The 1996 Bail Bond Guide for the National Prosecution Services). Complainant further avers that he was incarcerated for two (2) days and one (1) night and was humiliated and embarrassed particularly when the media had known of his imprisonment.

In his Comment, respondent Judge denied the allegations in the complaint. Respondent Judge averred that he fixed the bail bond in the amount of P736,000.00 which is the amount recommended by Prosecutor Perez. He justifies the issuance of the warrants on the ground that he is not allowed to conduct preliminary investigation under Section 2 Rule 112. He is of the opinion that the amount of bail for violation of BP 22 depends upon the amount involved (which is P1,559,954.00) and concludes that the amount of bail recommended by Prosecutor Perez, which he adopted, is in accordance with the 1996 Bail Bond Guide. Respondent Judge further claims that there was nothing arbitrary with the issuance of the warrants of arrest and the motion to dismiss the case predicated on the affidavit of desistance executed by Yu was filed seven (7) days after the warrants of arrest were already issued. Hence, he cannot be blamed for issuing the warrants which he claims was his ministerial function as a judge.

In his Reply, complainant Chua alleges that the bail in the amount of P736,000.00 is still excessive.

The Court Administrator, in his Memorandum, is of the view that indeed the amount of bail is excessive and violates the constitutional provision that excessive bail shall not be required. He recommends, however, that respondent Judge be admonished with a stern warning that the commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely as respondent Judge fell short of the requirement of judicial competence.

We adopt the recommendation of Court Administrator which we find to be well-taken.

As regards the issuance of warrant of arrest, complainant failed to proved malice or bad faith on the part of respondent Judge. As pointed out by respondent Judge, he relied on the certification of the fiscal that the latter has conducted a preliminary investigation and that probable cause exists. The issuance of the arrest warrants was in accordance with his ministerial function as a judge. While it is true that an Affidavit of Desistance was executed by Maximo Yu, the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the case was filed only after the warrants of arrest were issued by respondent Judge.

Anent the charge that the amount of bail was excessive, this Court has made the pronouncement in the cases of Chua vs. Dolalas (260 SCRA 309) and People vs. Resterio-Andrade (175 SCRA 782) that a DOJ circular fixing the amount of bail, while addressed to fiscals and prosecutors, is instructive to members of the bench who are called upon by law to discharge the important function of bail fixing. Courts must not only be aware but should also consider the circular due to its significance in the administration of criminal justice. While technically, the DOJ circular is not binding upon the courts, the same merits attention being an expression of the policy of the executive branch in the enforcement of criminal laws. Thus:

"Indeed, discretion and latitude is given to a court called upon to rule on the question of bail. However, where conditions imposed upon an accused or defendant seeking bail are so rigid and prohibitive, i.e., when the amount of bail is excessive, as to amount to a refusal thereof, the constitutional right to bail is rendered nugatory." (Chua vs. Dolalas, 260 SCRA 309, 318).

The DOJ Circular No. 6 (The 1996 Bail bond Guide) provides that if the amount involved for violation of BP 22 is more than P50,000.00, the amount of bail shall be P10,000.00 plus an addition of P1,000.00 for every P10,000.00 in excess thereof but the amount of bail shall not exceed P100,000.00. the amount of bail of P736,000.00 for 13 counts of violation of BP 22 is clearly not in accordance with the guidelines set in said circular.

While it is true that respondent merely adopted the recommendation of the prosecutor, respondent Judge should be aware of the constitutional prohibition against excessive bail. Respondent Judge should likewise keep abreast with the law and changes therein as well as with latest decisions of the Supreme Court (Carpio vs. de Guzman, 262 SCRA 615). Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end (Mendoza vs. Lavilles, Jr., 254 SCRA 286). Accordingly, respondent Judge fell short of the requirement of judicial competence.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Court Administrator, respondent Judge Wilfredo Dagatan of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Mandaue City is hereby ADMONISHED with a stern WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE