Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Cortes v. Catral

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in murder cases without holding hearings. Specifically, he granted bail in two murder cases, reduced bail granted by a prosecutor in another case without a hearing, and granted bail in a homicide case. The Court Administrator recommended dismissing the complaint. However, the Supreme Court held that Judge Catral was required to hold hearings when granting bail, even if the prosecution does not oppose bail. His failure to hold mandatory hearings, as well as granting bail prematurely in one case, constituted gross ignorance of the law. Judge Catral was found guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cortes v. Catral

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    1K views2 pages
    Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in murder cases without holding hearings. Specifically, he granted bail in two murder cases, reduced bail granted by a prosecutor in another case without a hearing, and granted bail in a homicide case. The Court Administrator recommended dismissing the complaint. However, the Supreme Court held that Judge Catral was required to hold hearings when granting bail, even if the prosecution does not oppose bail. His failure to hold mandatory hearings, as well as granting bail prematurely in one case, constituted gross ignorance of the law. Judge Catral was found guilty.

    Original Title

    (368) Cortes v. Catral

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in murder cases without holding hearings. Specifically, he granted bail in two murder cases, reduced bail granted by a prosecutor in another case without a hearing, and granted bail in a homicide case. The Court Administrator recommended dismissing the complaint. However, the Supreme Court held that Judge Catral was required to hold hearings when granting bail, even if the prosecution does not oppose bail. His failure to hold mandatory hearings, as well as granting bail prematurely in one case, constituted gross ignorance of the law. Judge Catral was found guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Cortes v. Catral

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in murder cases without holding hearings. Specifically, he granted bail in two murder cases, reduced bail granted by a prosecutor in another case without a hearing, and granted bail in a homicide case. The Court Administrator recommended dismissing the complaint. However, the Supreme Court held that Judge Catral was required to hold hearings when granting bail, even if the prosecution does not oppose bail. His failure to hold mandatory hearings, as well as granting bail prematurely in one case, constituted gross ignorance of the law. Judge Catral was found guilty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Cortes vs.

    Catral

    AM RTJ-97-1387 | September 10 1997

    Facts: ​A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging Judge Segundo B. Catral of the
    RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gross Ignorance of the Law committed when (1) he granted bail in murder
    cases without hearing (People v. Duerme, et al., Criminal Case 07-893 for murder; People v. Rodrigo
    Bumanglag, Criminal Case 08-866 for murder); (2) he reduced the bailbond granted by the provincial
    prosecutor from P180,000 to P30,000 without hearing (Barangay Captain Rodolfo Castaneda’s Criminal
    Case 11-6250 for Illegal Possession of Firearm); (3) he granted a bailbond of P14,800 in a homicide case
    (Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivera); and (4) he acquitted Jimmy Siriban, the rumors spreading that the
    wife of Judge Segundo Catral went to Jimmy Siriban’s house to get the envelop. The Office of the Court
    Administrator recommended the dismissal of the complaint saying that there is nothing in the allegations
    of the complainant that would warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against the judge.

    Issue: ​Whether Judge Catral is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused
    in Criminal Cases 07-874 and 08-866.

    Held: ​As held in Basco vs. Rapatalo, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where
    the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application of bail to the sound discretion of
    the court. A hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the
    application to grant and fix bail. The importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases
    wherein the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an
    objection to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching
    questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the
    accused. The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as the determination of whether or not the evidence of
    guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, It may rightly be exercised only after
    the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of
    evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the
    court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be
    submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce evidence in
    his own rebuttal. The fact that Criminal Case 07-874 was subsequently dismissed by Judge Alameda
    does not completely exculpate Judge Catral. The judge is not bound by the recommendation of the
    prosecutor and the affidavits and sworn statements of the witnesses are mere hearsay statements which
    could hardly be the basis for determining whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is
    strong. The procedural lapse of the judge is aggravated by the fact that even though the accused in
    Criminal Case 07-874 (People v. Ahmed Duerme), have yet to be arrested, respondent already fixed bail
    in the sum of P200,000.00. The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the
    law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition
    for bail for some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed. In sum, Judge Segundo B. Catral is guilty of
    gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases 07-874 and 08-866
    without having conducted the requisite hearing.

    You might also like