Cruz V Yaneza Rule 114 Sec 17 Ver2.0

Cruz v. Yaneza, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1175.
March 9, 1999
Facts:
Raffy Tulfo of DZXL furnished the Office of the Court Administrator

(OCA) a copy of unsworn letter-complaint of a certain Victorino Cruz
against JUDGE REYNOLD Q. YANEZA of MeTC-Br. 54, Navotas, Metro
Manila, for alleged irregular approval of bail bonds and issuance of release
orders by Judge Yaneza. Thus, OCA forwarded the said letter-complaint to
Executive Judge Benjamin M. Aquino Jr. of RTC-Br. 72, Malabon, Metro
Manila, with instructions to conduct a discreet investigation. In his report,
Judge Aquino confirmed that Judge Yaneza had been improperly
approving bail bonds and irregularly issuing release orders for accused
whose cases were pending outside of his jurisdiction, which include those
criminal cases pending before RTCs and MeTCs in Quezon City,
Cabanatuan City, La Union, Bulacan, Batangas, Puerto Princesa Palawan,
Pasay City, Malabon, and Caloocan City. Some of which were issued on a
Saturday, or after office hours, during nighttime, despite no bail was
recommended, even some were convicted, and despite non-payments of
corresponding JDF fees.
In his Answer, Judge Yaneza admitted the allegations and avers that:
1. He approved the bail bonds and issued the release orders in good
faith and not for any pecuniary consideration;
2. There is nothing irregular in his conduct as it did not in any way
prejudice the rights of the other litigants;
3. It is for personal fulfillment and spiritual satisfaction in extending
expeditious assistance to the hapless and pitiful detention prisoners;
4. He condemns the filing of the instant letter-complaint, with
complainant hiding behind the anonymity of a fictitious name and
intended merely to embarrass and malign respondent’s integrity;
5. he is constrained to work overtime, sometimes even Saturdays and
Sundays, because he has lost trust and confidence in his clerk of court
who is allegedly incompetent and lacks dedication to his work;
6. It is during his overtime work that requests for action on bail bonds
are normally presented; and
7. He was almost overwhelmed with pity as the accused were usually
poor, oppressed and beleaguered, hence, he approved their bail
bonds.
Notwithstanding the letter-complaint against him, and in defiance of

the Court’s directive for him to explain, Judge Yaneza continued with his
conduct and wrongdoing. He still approved bail bonds and issued release
orders for cases pending before MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan and MCTC of
Nabua, Camarines Sur.
He even issued Office Order No. 04-98 authorizing four (4) of his
court personnel, aside from the clerk of court and cash clerk, to receive
payments and issue official receipts relative to docket and other fees paid
by litigants.
Because the personnel thus designated by respondent Judge were not

bonded, hence not authorized by law to receive payments, the OCA
directed respondent Judge to desist and refrain from implementing his
Office Order.
But Judge Yaneza again approved bail bonds and issued release
orders pending before MTC Angeles City, RTC Marikina, and RTC Puerto
Princesa Palawan.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of Judge Yaneza in approving the bail bonds
and issuance of release orders for cases outside his court’s jurisdiction is
justified under the law and Rules of Court.
Ruling:
No, his acts are not justified and therefore unlawful.
Section 17, par. (a), of Rule 114, as amended by Administrative

Circular No. 12-94, provides:
“(a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the
case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof,
with another branch of the same court within the province or city. If the
accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the
case is pending, bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of said
place, or, if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge,
municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.”
Here, the foregoing provision anticipates two (2) situations. First, the
accused is arrested in the same province, city or municipality where his
case is pending. Second, the accused is arrested in the province, city or
municipality other than where his case is pending. In the first situation, the
accused may file bail in the court where his case is pending or, in the
absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the
same court within the province or city. In the second situation, the accused
has two (2) options. First, he may file bail in the court where his case is
pending or, second, he may file bail with any regional trial court in the
province, city or muncipality where he was arrested. When no regional
trial court judge is available, he may file bail with any metropolitan trial
judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
Interestingly, almost all the cases wherein respondent Judge

approved bail bonds and issued release orders were not pending before his
sala. To complicate matters, the accused were neither arrested nor detained
within the territorial jurisdiction of respondent Judges court.
ISSUES REGARDING JUDGE YANEZA’s OTHER CONTENTIONS
Issue No. 2:
Whether or not his acts were not irregular and may be excused
considering that he approved the bail bonds mainly in good faith
interpretation and application of Section 17 in relation to Section 19, Rule114 of
the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and that it was never his intention to
disregard the right accorded to the State and the private complainant to be
given the opportunity to oppose the grant of bail to the accused in some
instances.
Ruling No. 2
No.
Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct provides: “As a judge,

respondent must have the basic rules at the palm of his hands as he is
expected to maintain professional competence at all times.”
Here, Since Judge Yaneza presides over MeTC-Br. 54 in Navotas,

Metro Manila, his territorial jurisdiction is confined therein. Therefore, to
approve bail applications and issue corresponding release orders in cases
pending in courts outside his territorial jurisdiction, some even in courts as
far as Nueva Ecija and Palawan, particularly so where the accused are
detained thereat and not in his jurisdiction and therefore cannot personally
appear before him as required, constitute ignorance of the law so gross as
to amount to incompetence and even corruption.
Judge Yaneza cannot shield himself from the consequences of his
persistent deviant activities by the simple invocation of good faith and the
supplication that he was only moved by pity for the poor and forsaken
accused. The numerous cases and series of events previously adverted to
manifest without any modicum of doubt the gravity of his incompetence
and arbitrariness.
Issue No. 3
Whether or not his single-sala MeTC in Navotas, being part of the

Metropolitan Trial Court salas spread out in Metro Manila, has the lawful
authority to act on bail bonds posted by accused in criminal cases lodged in
other courts salas, within Metro Manila or otherwise detained within
Metro Manila which he honestly deems a contiguous area, in situations or
occasions that the handling trial court judge is absent or not available.
Ruling No. 3
No.
Sec. 18 of BP Blg. 129 it is stated:
“Sec. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch.

The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the
Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. x x x x, as well as
determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which the said branch may exercise
appellate jurisdiction…”
Here, such prerogative was exercised by the Supreme Court when it

issued Administrative Order No. 3 defining the territorial jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Courts in the National Capital Region, thus, Branches
CLXIX to CLXX, inclusive, with seats at Malabon over the municipalities of
Malabon and Navotas. It is thus clear that the territorial jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts stationed in Malabon is limited to the municipalities
of Malabon and Navotas. By necessity, the Metropolitan Trial Courts with
seats in Malabon and Navotas have, likewise, limited jurisdiction therein.
Section 35 of BP Blg. 129 and Secs. 17 and 19 of Rule 114 are to be

construed and applied in conjunction with each other. The above-cited
rules do not give the Metropolitan Trial Judge blanket authority to grant
applications for bail. There are prerequisites to be complied with. First, the
application for bail must be filed in the court where the case is pending. In
the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, the application for bail
may be filed with another branch of the same court within the province or
city. Second, if the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality
other than where the case is pending, bail may be filed with any regional
trial court of the place. If no judge thereof is available, then with any
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial
judge therein.
Issue No. 4
Whether or not Judge Yaneza may be excused of his unlawful acts

considering that in all instances that he was asked to approve bail, he
conscientiously and carefully examined the documents thus presented for
prior evaluation to ascertain compliance with Rule 114.
Ruling No. 4
No.
Section 14, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court states: “The accuse or any
person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector
of internal revenue, or provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount
fixed by the court or recommended by the fiscal who investigated or filed
the case, and upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a
written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of Section
2 hereof, the accused shall be discharged from custody. Money thus
deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of any
fine and costs and the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to
whoever made the deposit.”
Here, if this were true, he would not have succumbed to his apparent
predilection to approve bail bonds and issue release orders considering
that a mere passing glance by a seasoned and conscientious judge of the
documents thus presented before him would reveal his lack of authority to
act on them. He would have been basically guided by the wordings of a
warrant of arrest. The above-cited rule is uniformly embodied in every
warrant of arrest which respondent, as a trial judge, should be familiar
with. Unfortunately, he blatantly disregarded this basic and elementary
rule.
In Paz v. Tiong, A.M. No. MTJ-94-998, 9 February 1996, it was held that,
“Respondent had absolutely no authority to approve the bailbond and
issue the orders of release. He totally ignored and disregarded Section 14 of
Rule 114 x x x x As afore-stated, Criminal Case No. 2859-A was pending
before Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court stationed in Alaminos,
Pangasinan, and only said Regional Trial Court may approve the
bailbond and issue the release order. The record is devoid of any
showing that no RTC judge was available to act on the bail bond.
Neither does the record show that the accused was arrested in another
province, city, or municipality. Respondent judge, therefore, had no
reason or authority to act as he did.”
In Adapon v. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1112, 27 December 1996, it

was held that: “But even assuming that bail could be granted in this case, it
was not within the jurisdiction of the respondent judge to grant the same.
Bail may be granted by the court in which it is properly filed.”
In Almeron v. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1142, 6 November 1997, the

Court held: “In exercising such judicial discretion, however, a judge is
required to conduct a hearing wherein both the prosecution and the
defense present evidence that would point to the strength or weakness of
the evidence of guilt. The discretion of the judge lies solely in the
appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the evidence presented during
the hearing and not in the determination of whether or not the hearing and
itself should be held for such a hearing is considered mandatory and
absolutely indispensable before a judge can aptly be said to be in a position
to determine whether the evidence for the prosecution is weak or strong.”
Here, Respondent Judge aggravated his improperties and

misconduct when he summarily granted bail to accused Consolacion F.
dela Cruz charged with illegal recruitment in large scale punishable with
life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. In such case, bail is not a
matter of right and the grant of bails falls within the sound discretion of
the judge. And in order for the judge to properly exercise his discretion, he
must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is
strong.
Issue No. 5
Whether or not Judge Yaneza may be excused considering that

nobody is injured by his acts.
Ruling No. 5
No.
In Basco v. Rapatalo, it was held: “Since the determination of whether
or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is a matter of judicial discretion,
the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the
prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application for bail
to the discretion of the court.”
Here, Judge Yaneza, in granting bail to accused dela Cruz without

any hearing, deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to contest her
application for bail, thus denying the People due process. Worse, the case
was pending not in respondents sala in Navotas but in RTC-Br. 86,
Cabanatuan City. Neither was dela Cruz detained in Navotas which is the
limit of respondent judges territorial jurisdiction but at the PNP-CIG
Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City. We cannot therefore
concede to respondents argument that he had not injured anybody, neither
the handling trial court judge, the government, the private complainant nor
the accused.
JUDGE YANEZA WAS DISMISSED effective immediately with

forfeiture of retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in
any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Cruz V Yaneza Rule 114 Sec 17 Ver2.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz V Yaneza Rule 114 Sec 17 Ver2.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz V Yaneza Rule 114 Sec 17 Ver2.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz v. Yaneza, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1175.

Raffy Tulfo of DZXL furnished the Office of the Court Administrator

Notwithstanding the letter-complaint against him, and in defiance of

Because the personnel thus designated by respondent Judge were not

No, his acts are not justified and therefore unlawful.

Section 17, par. (a), of Rule 114, as amended by Administrative

Interestingly, almost all the cases wherein respondent Judge

ISSUES REGARDING JUDGE YANEZA’s OTHER CONTENTIONS

Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct provides: “As a judge,

Here, Since Judge Yaneza presides over MeTC-Br. 54 in Navotas,

Whether or not his single-sala MeTC in Navotas, being part of the

Sec. 18 of BP Blg. 129 it is stated:

“Sec. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch.

Here, such prerogative was exercised by the Supreme Court when it

Section 35 of BP Blg. 129 and Secs. 17 and 19 of Rule 114 are to be

Whether or not Judge Yaneza may be excused of his unlawful acts

In Adapon v. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1112, 27 December 1996, it

In Almeron v. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1142, 6 November 1997, the

Here, Respondent Judge aggravated his improperties and

Whether or not Judge Yaneza may be excused considering that

Here, Judge Yaneza, in granting bail to accused dela Cruz without

JUDGE YANEZA WAS DISMISSED effective immediately with

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.