LACHICA V. TORMIS
Facts:
In an affidavit dated Oct 2, 2003, Trinidad O. Lachica charged Judged
Rosabella M Tormis of the Municipal Trial court of Cebu City, Branch IV, with
abuse of authority. On July 2, 2003, accused Domugho was apprehended by the police at around
8:45pm and was brought to the police station for booking and custody at 9:30pm.
On July 3, 2003, complainant was surprised to receive a call from the
accused that she was released from confinement on July 2 at 10:00pm.
Complainant inquired from the police station if an order of release was issued
by the court, but she was informed that the accused was released because of the
phone call the respondent judge made telling the desk officer that the accused
already posted a cash bail. Complainant checked the case records but the
expediente contained no copies of the order of release. She was only shown a
copy of such at 1:00pm. Also, it was only on 430pm of july 3, 2003 that the
case records was found.
The police blotter showed no entry of the order of release received was
by the police. Only a notation that there was a posting of the cash bail bond
was entered therein.
Complainant states that it was improper for the respondent judge to
receive the cash bail bond as the function belonged exclusively to the office
of the clerk of court. Also, she claimed that said judge committed an act of
impropriety when she called the police station to verbally order the release of
the accused.
Respondent judge denied the charges. She states that she issued the
order of release at 7pm after accused posted the cash bond. She claimed that
such accused was released because of the order of release and not because of
the phone call. The investigating judge submitted a report recommending that respondent
judge be fined in the amount of P20,000 or suspended for 3 months. OCA agreed
with the findings and recommended the suspension of 3 months.
Issue:
WON respondent judge can be held administratively liable for
personally receiving the cash bail bond for the accused.
Held:
Yes. Section 14, of Rule 114 of the revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure states that:
“The accused or any
person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash
with the nearest collector or internal revenue or provincial, city, or
municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by
the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case…….”
Section 14
exclusively enumerates those officials who are tasked to receive such bail
bond. A judge is not one of those authorized to receive the deposit of cash as
bail, nor should such cash be kept in the office of the judge.
Respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct for having abused her
judicial authority when she personally accepted the cash bail bond of the
accused and for deliberately misleading the court by making false
representations. She is suspended from
office for 6 months w/o salary and other benefits and sternly warned that a
repetition of the same shall be dealt more seriously.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento