Lachica vs 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 areceiving 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.