TUCAY VS.

DOMAGAS
A.M. No. RTJ-95-1286, March 2 1995

FACTS:

Ludovico, Bernardo and Melchor Ellamil are accused of murder. Bernardo filed a petition for bail with the
prayer that he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P50,000.00. The petition contained the notation
"No objection" of Provincial Prosecutor Jose Antonio Guillermo.

Without holding a hearing to determine whether the evidence of the prosecution was strong, respondent
judge issued an order on the same day, in which he granted bail and directed the release of accused
Bernardo from detention.

Teresita Q. Tucay, wife of the victim, filed a complaint against Judge Roger A. Domagas of the Regional
Trial Court (Branch 46), Urdaneta, Pangasinan, charging him with ignorance of the law, serious
misconduct and grave abuse of discretion. Tucay protested the grant of bail without hearing and without
notice to trial fiscal.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to which the letter-complaint was sent, finds the respondent
judge grossly ignorant of the law in granting bail without a hearing in a criminal case involving a capital
offense and recommends that he be fined and given a stern warning. It likewise points out that, in his
order releasing the accused on bail, the judge did not state that he was granting the petition for bail but
simply ordered him released.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross of ignorance of law in granting bail without a
hearing in a criminal case involving a capital offense

HELD:

Yes. Although the Provincial Prosecutor had interposed no objection to the grant of bail to the accused,
respondent judge should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained
from the prosecution whether the latter was not really contesting the bail application. He should have
called a hearing for the additional reason of taking into account the guidelines in Rule 114, Sec. 6 of 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, in fixing the amount of the bail.

Only after satisfying himself that the prosecution did not wish to oppose the petition for bail for justifiable
cause (e.g., for tactical reasons) and taking into account the factors enumerated in Rule 114, sec. 6 for
fixing bail should respondent judge have granted the petition for bail and ordered the release of the
accused. In failing to observe these rudimentary requirements, the respondent judge showed gross
ignorance of the law for which he should be fined.