Case Digest: MANONGGIRING v. Judge Ibrahim

MAIMONA MANONGGIRING v. Judge Amer R. Ibrahim
391 SCRA 673 (2002)

A judge who grants bail without conducting the required hearing to a person charged with a capital offense is guilty of ignorance of the law and incompetence.

An Information was filed charging six (6) persons of the crime of arson punishable by reclusion perpetua. The ―No Bail‖ entry in the information, however, was replaced with the bail amount. Subsequently, the said information was amended and ―No Bail‖ was recommended.

One of the accused applied for bail with the Regional Trial Court presided by Respondent Judge Amer R. Ibrahim (Judge Ibrahim). The sheriff assigned to his sala was tasked to verify whether or not the crime charged is bailable and the sheriff found that the crime was bailable there being no amended information. The application for bail was granted. Hence, the filing of administrative complaint against Judge Ibrahim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent Judge Ibrahim acted in gross ignorance of the law for granting bail for an offense punished by reclusion perpetua

HELD:

Why Judge Ibrahim did not himself verify the records of the criminal case and instead just sent his sheriff for the purpose, he has not proffered any explanation. Judge Ibrahim was, by his virtual admission, misled by the prosecution’s specification of the provision of law violated compounds, rather than excuses, his ignorance. For a judge to rely blindly on the prosecutor’s say-so is for him to abdicate his judicial functions in favor of the prosecutor.

Thus, when a judge grants bail to a person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the required hearing, he is guilty of ignorance or incompetence which cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable negligence.