Guillermo vs.

Reyes
AM No. RTJ-93-1088
January 18, 1995
Facts:
Complainant, Teresita Guillermo, filed an administrative complaint against herein
respondent judge, Judge Jose Reyes, for allegedly rendering unjust judgment, for gross
incompetence, misconduct and ignorance of the law.
Herein complainant was the offended party in a criminal case of serious illegal
detention filed against Aurora Ilot-de la Cruz and her sister Annie Ilot-Orgeta. According
to herein complainant, when both sisters filed a joint application for bail, respondent
judge denied the same in an order dated July 15, 1992, on the ground that it was
premature since the accused were yet to be apprehended.
However, after the accused surrendered, without conducting any further hearing,
an order dated August 24, 1992, respondent judge granted the petition for bail of the
accused, thereby denying the prosecution an opportunity to be heard and to oppose the
said petition.
Subsequently, respondent judge rendered judgment absolving the accused of the
crime charged.
Issue:
Whether or not the judge erred in granting the petition of bail?
Held:
The grant of bail to an accused charged with an offense that carries with the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, as in the case of serious illegal detention, is discretionary
and not a matter of right on the part of the accused. Furthermore, when evidence of
guilt is strong, accused shall not be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the
prosecution. But in such cases, the prosecution has the burden of showing proof of guilt.
Bail is also unavailing with respect to an accused who has not voluntarily
surrendered, or to one who has not yet been placed under legal custody.
In the case at bar, where the accused voluntarily appears, after an earlier
hearing, where his motion was dismissed by the fact that he was still at large, the judge
should have required another motion for bail and set the same for hearing, and should
not grant bail based on the evidence presented in the earlier hearing.
Judge remanded with stern warning.
Contention of the complainant:
o Judgment was unjust and shows respondents gross ignorance of the
law since the established facts clearly made out a case of serious illegal
detention.
o That the respondent judge, even after finding that the detention was
illegal, nonetheless, the respondent held that the offender had no
intention to deprive them of their liberty but acted by mere anger and
annoyance because of their earlier arguments.
Contention of the respondent:
o Since the petition had been initially been denied, not on the merits nor
based on the evidence, he could act thereon upon the surrender of the
accused.

The court states that the error of the judge was not based on fraud, and that
the error is not gross or patent, nor that he acted with malice or was there
any evident bad faith. That the respondent judge acted in good faith,
therefore, he is not administratively liable for his act since the error was that
of an Honest Mistake.