A.M. No. MTJ-99-1205 - OFELIA DIRECTO, COMPLAINT, VS. JUDGE FABIAN M. BAUTISTA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, let a warrant be issued for the arrest of all the accused who enjoy their provisional liberty by posting a bail bond in the amount of P60,000.00 each. It is in relation with this order that Ofelia Directo, private complainant in the criminal case and wife of the victim, filed a letter-complaint with the Court Administrator against respondent on May 6, 1997 for allegedly failing to follow the procedural requirements in the allowance of bail. She alleged that respondent judge granted bail to the accused and further reduced it without notice or hearing. Respondent comments, in justification of his actions, that an application for admission to bail is filed only in instances when the investigating judge issues an order finding probable cause against the accused for a capital offense, and when there was initially a denial of bail. Such petition for bail necessitates a hearing. In the particular case at hand, however, respondent judge contended that there was no need for a hearing in order to give the prosecution a chance to prove that the evidence of guilt on the charge of murder was strong, due to the earlier determination made by the investigating judge that in fact the evidence of guilt was not strong. In view of this finding, bail was granted for all the accused and since there was no petition for bail filed, no hearing was required or had. The Court agrees with complainant that respondent judge lapsed into procedural error in granting bail to the accused. When a preliminary investigation is conducted by a municipal trial court judge, he is obligated, upon conclusion of the preliminary investigation, to transmit to the provincial or city fiscal, for appropriate action, the resolution of the case which must contain a brief statement of findings of fact and of the law supporting said resolution. The resolution shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused; (d) the order of release of the accused and cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint (Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court). In the case at bar, instead of waiting for the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, respondent judge issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused immediately after his determination of existence of probable cause. In the same order, he also granted the accused bail in the amount of P60,000.00 each, later reducing this to P30,000.00 over the objection of private complainant. These pronouncements should have been included in the resolution of the case and not in a separate order. Further, respondent judge cannot motu proprio grant bail. Although the Rules of Court authorize the investigating judge to determine the amount of bail, such authority does not include the outright granting of bail without a preliminary hearing on the matter, more so in a case where the crime charged is