A.M. No. MTJ-97-1139 (AM OCA-IPI 95-6-MTJ) - ROBERTO ESPIRITU, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EDUARDO JOVELLANOS, 8TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, ALCALA-BAUTISTA, PANGASINAN.

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused, so the Honorable Judge cannot act on such request for reduction of bail even if interceded by the father of the accused; 4. The amount at which the bail was reduced: P10,000.00 is not commensurate with the gravity of the crime charged, an evident manifestation of the Judges injudiciousness in the exercise of his authority and discretion. The bail bond guide of 1981 provides for the amount P12,500.00; Simply stated, the complaint is that respondent judge is guilty of ignorance of the law, bias, and partiality for Dumlao as shown by the following: (a) respondent judge granted bail and later reduced its amount when the fact was that, at that time, Dumlao was not in the custody of the court; (b) there was no written motion presented for the reduction of bail, which is a necessity since MCTCs are courts of record; and (c) pursuant to the 1981 Bail Bond Guide the bail for frustrated murder should be P12,500.00. A. It is indeed true that, in general, bail presupposes that the applicant is under arrest, detained, or otherwise deprived of his liberty. [12] In this case, it appears that on July 16, 1994, shortly after the incident, Weny Dumlao surrendered to the police, but the next day (July 17, 1994) he was released to the custody of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Emiliano Matro. [13] Prosecutor Matro testified that upon DECS Supervisor Nuelito Dumlaos request, he agreed to take custody of Dumlao for which reason Weny Dumlao was released by the police. [14] According to Matro, this was not the first time that he took custody of one who was under investigation. [15] Apparently, therefore, when Dumlao applied for bail on September 7, 1994 to respondent judge, Dumlao was not in custody. Nor was his release to the custody of Assistant City Prosecutor Matro in accordance with law. Under Rule 114, §15 of the Rules of Court, the release on recognizance of any person under detention may be ordered only by a court and only in the following cases: (a) when the offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, a light felony, or a criminal offense, the imposable penalty for which does not exceed 6 months imprisonment and/or P2,000 fine, under the circumstances provided in R.A. No. 6036; (b) where a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, in which case the court, in its discretion, may allow his release on his own recognizance; (c) where the accused has applied for probation, pending resolution of the case but no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one; and (d) in case of a youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial, or appeal, if he is unable to furnish bail and under the circumstances envisaged in P.D. No. 603, as amended (Art. 191). [16] But although then not in legal custody, Du