Cabañero vs.
Cañon [AM MTJ-01-1369, 20 September 2001] Resolution of elementary, the failure to know or observe it constitutes gross ignorance of
First Division, Pardo (J): 4 concur
Facts: A certain Jaime Cañal accused Mrs. Guillerma D. Cabañero's son,
Jessie D. Cabañero, of entering Cañal’s farmland and harvesting falcata trees
valued at P3,191.00. The chief of police filed the case with the 7th MCTC
Hinatuan-Tagbina, with station at Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur, presided over
by Judge Antonio K. Cañon. The Judge conducted a preliminary investigation
of the case to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. On 1 October 1998, Judge Cañon issued a warrant of arrest not only
against Jessie Cabañero but also against Guillerma D. Cabañero for covering
up for her son. On 15 October 1998, policemen arrested Guillerma and
detained her at the Hinatuan Municipal Jail. To secure her temporary
liberty, she posted bail, which could not be issued and approved in her
name because she was not an accused in Criminal Case 4036-H. The judge
pegged the bail at P30,000.00. On 16 October 1998, Guillerma was released.
Incidentally, on 7 October 1998, when her son was arrested, he also posted
bail amounting to P30,000.00. In a complaint dated 16 September 1999,
Mrs. Guillerma D. Cabañero charged Judge Antonio K. Cañon, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Hinatuan-Tagbina, at Hinatuan, Surigao Del Sur with
partiality, issuance of unjust interlocutory orders and grave abuse of
discretion relative to Criminal Case 4036-H (People vs. Jessie Cabañero, for
qualified theft), alleging that considering the value of the property allegedly
stolen, the bail required was excessive. On 24 April 2000, the judge died.
Issue: Whether Judge Cañon imposed excessive bail in the case of qualified
theft.
Held: Judge Cañon erred in ordering the arrest of Guillerma D. Cabañero.
She was not included as one of the respondents in the criminal case filed by
the chief of police of Hinatuan. The judges’s interpretation of his powers
under the Revised Rules of Court was far-fetched. The judge also imposed
excessive bail. Under Department Circular 4, the 1996 Bail Bond Guide for
the National Prosecution Service for the offense of qualified theft, if the
value of the property stolen is more than P200.00 but does not exceed
P6,000.00, the bail recommended is P24,000.00. Herein, the monetary value
of the falcata trees cut into logs is P3,1991.40. The bail of P30,000 is not
proportionate to the amount stolen. When the law transgressed is
the law. Judge Antonio K. Cañon was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of
P5,000.00, to be taken from his retirement benefits in view of his demise.
RIGHT TO BAIL
1.Victory Liner Vs. Belosillo
Facts: Judge Reynaldo Bellosilo was the presiding Judge ofOrani, Bataan
MCTC and ating Judge in Dinalupihan, HermosaBataan.On March 2, 2000
one of the bus of Victory Line was cruisingalong the national highway of
Dinalupihan, Bataan, itaccidentally hit and fatally injured Marciana Bautista
Moraleswho died a day after. Victory Liner Bus Inc. shouldered thefuneral
and burial of Marciana Morales and on March 6, 2000entered into an
Agreement with the heirs of Marciana Morales.On March 14, 2000 upon the
payment of VLI to the heirs ofMarciana Morales they executed
PINAGSAMANG SALAYSAYbetween VLI and the heirs though their
authorizedrepresentative Faustina M. Antonio executed Release of
Claimand affidavit of Desistance in favour of VLI and Reino dela Cruz,driver
of VLI.However, on March 3, 2000, 2 of the sons of Marciana Moraleswho
are also a signatories in the executed agreement with VLIalready filed a
criminal case against the driver Rieno dela Cruzof the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.On March 13, 2000 after the Preliminary
examination, JudgeBellosillo ordered the issuance of warrant of arrest of
Dela Cruzand fixed his bail of P50k in cash and ordered the Chief ofPolice of
Bataan to impound the bus involved in the accidentwhich could be released
only upon posting bail of P50k.On March 30, 2000, VLI paid cash bond under
protest andupon showing the official recipt to the chief of police
theimpounded of bus was released. Again, the Judge ordered theChief of
Police to explain in writing why did they released thebus without court
order. The bus was re-impounded and onApril 18, 2000 by virtue of Judge
BEllisillo’s order.On June 20, 2000 VLI filed with Office of the Court
ofAdministration against Judge Reynaldo Belosillo claiming hisIGNORANCE
OF THE LAW for impounding the bus and requiredVLI to post bond for the
release , GRAVELY ABUSED HISAUTHORITY when it revoked the srety bond
of driver EdwinSerrano, RENDERED UNJUST AND OPPRESSIVE ORDER when
heordered the bail to be increased from 50k to 350k and requiredit to be
posted in cash, GUILTY OF INACATION for failing toresolve the petitiuon of
VLI despite of the time lapse .The respondent justifies his action in his
comment, that thebail he required for VLI was to pay the damagaes by way
ofsubsidiary liability in case of insolvency, the cash requirementfor bail
according to him was required for it was the prayer ofthe prosecution and it
is his iscretion as Judge as to what for ofpayment of the bail as per the Rules
of Court., the increase bailfrom 50k to 350k was ordered because the driver
was already afugitive.
Issue: Whether the imposition of cash bond and requiring theaccused to pay
in cash tantamount to grave abuse ofauthority, gross ignorance of the law,
excessive bail , unjust andoppressive?
Held
The amount of bail should, therefore be reasonable at all times. It must be
high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required but no
higher than is reasonably calculated to serve this purpose. Excessive bail
should not be required.
The Rules of Court allowed the payment of Bail bond in cash in lieu of Surety
Bond, but the choice belong to the accused.
Moreover under 2000 Bail Bond Guide of DOJ, crimes of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and with violation of LTO Traffic Code,
bail shall be 30k regardless of the number of deaths.
The Supreme Court charge Judge Bellosillo guilty for ignorance of the law
and oppression in imposing excessive bail bonds on Dela Cruz and Serrano’s
case and respondent Judge was ordered to pay a fine of P10k from his
retirement benefits.

The Supreme Court held that Judge Bellosillo was wrong in increasing the
bail bond of driver Serrano unconsciously from 6ok to 350k. Although
Serrano and Dela Cruz was regular worker of VLI they are not capable of
paying cash bond of P50K and 350k respectively.

The Constitution guarantees to every person under legat custody legal

custody that right to bail except offences punishable with reclusion
perpetua provides, that in fixing the amount of bail, the judge must
primarily consider the following factors:

1. Financial ability of the accused to post bail

2. Nature and circumtances of the offense
3. Penalty for the offense charged
4. Character and reputation of the accused
5. The weight of evidence against the accused
6. Age and health of the accused
7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial
8. Forfeiture of the bonds
9. The fact that the accused was fugitive when arrested
10. The pendency of the cases in which the accused in under bond