Balanay vs. White

A judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting temporary liberty to one charged with a capital offense through ex parte motions without notice and hearing, and guilty of gross misconduct for directing the alteration of the transcript to include matters not actually stated in court. The elementary rules requiring a bail hearing and a notice of hearing for litigious motions admit no excuse, while a transcript must faithfully record only what transpired.

Respondent Juliana Adalim-White was the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Eastern Samar, with jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 10-07 for murder against Isidoro N. Adamas, Jr. Adamas was a public official of the Municipality of Oras, Eastern Samar, detained on a non-bailable charge. Complainant Armando M. Balanay appeared as the complaining witness whose testimony, with that of his son and other prosecution witnesses, was material to the criminal prosecution.

Isidoro N. Adamas, Jr. stood charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 10-07 before respondent's court, an offense punishable as a capital offense and therefore non-bailable absent a hearing on the strength of evidence. Adamas, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Oras, Eastern Samar, had surrendered to police authorities after the offense. While under detention, he filed very urgent motions for furlough to attend regular sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan.

On June 18, 2010, at 8:50 a.m., Adamas filed a motion seeking furlough to attend the Sangguniang Bayan session that same day at 9:00 a.m. Respondent granted the motion in chambers before 9 a.m. without notice of hearing, proof of service on the prosecution, compliance with the three-day notice rule, or hearing in open court. The same pattern was repeated until six consecutive furloughs were granted, all without requiring comment from Prosecutor Raquel G. Kho or affording the prosecution opportunity to be heard. According to respondent, affidavits of desistance subscribed before Prosecutor Kho were already in the records, Adamas was not a flight risk because he had voluntarily surrendered, and his status as a public official necessitated attendance at sessions.

Thereafter, at the hearing on July 22, 2010, respondent dismissed Criminal Case No. 10-07 on the ground that the prosecution had no witnesses to present. According to complainant, the prosecution witnesses failed to attend because they were not duly notified, and he and his son remained willing to testify if placed under the witness protection program. Complainant further alleged that the prosecution had reserved presentation of additional witnesses, but respondent instructed court stenographer Prescila V. Mosende to delete the reservation and insert other statements never made, evidenced by a sheet of paper containing respondent's handwritten notes.

The trial court found, through respondent's own admissions during investigation, that she did not set the furlough motions for hearing, did not ask the prosecutor to comment, and considered a casual lobby conversation and the affidavits of desistance sufficient. Mosende testified that respondent ordered the insertions, and respondent admitted instructing Mosende to make changes based on her notes after purported verification against tape recordings. To verify accuracy, the investigating justice had two Court of Appeals stenographers transcribe the July 22, 2010 audio records; their transcriptions showed the inserted exchanges between respondent and Prosecutor Kho regarding a secret witness and witness protection application did not exist.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Complainant argued that respondent allowed Adamas six furloughs despite facing murder, a non-bailable offense, through motions granted without requiring prosecution comment or opportunity to be heard.
• Precipitate Dismissal as Serious Misconduct: Complainant argued that respondent dismissed Criminal Case No. 10-07 by declaring the prosecution had no witnesses when the records showed otherwise, as witnesses were merely not duly notified for the July 22, 2010 hearing and he and his son were willing to testify under witness protection.
• Falsification of Transcript: Complainant argued that respondent falsified the July 22, 2010 TSN by instructing Mosende to delete the prosecution's reservation to present additional witnesses and insert statements not made, supported by respondent's handwritten notes incorporated into the TSN.
• Penalty Sought: Complainant sought respondent's dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits.

• Correction of TSN: Respondent argued that she instructed Mosende to correct the July 22, 2010 TSN only to make it more coherent and accurate, based on her own notes which Mosende adopted after verifying them from taped recordings, and maintained the prosecution never reserved presentation of additional witnesses.
• Basis for Furloughs: Respondent argued that she granted the six furloughs based on affidavits of desistance subscribed before Prosecutor Kho already attached to the records, and that Adamas was not a flight risk because he voluntarily surrendered to police.
• Public Official Status: Respondent maintained that Adamas had to attend Sangguniang Bayan sessions because he is a public official and had to work, which justified immediate grant of the motions.
• Relief Prayed: Respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint and that complainant be cited for contempt.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Whether respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting six ex parte furloughs to one charged with murder without notice of hearing and without hearing the prosecution.
• Gross Misconduct in Altering TSN: Whether respondent is guilty of serious or gross misconduct for causing the unauthorized alteration of the July 22, 2010 TSN and for precipitately dismissing the criminal case.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Yes. Grant of temporary liberty to one charged with a capital offense without notice and hearing violates elementary rules on bail hearings and litigious motions, constituting gross ignorance.
• Gross Misconduct in Altering TSN: Yes. Directing insertion into the TSN of substantial exchanges never made, proved by admission, stenographer testimony, handwritten notes, and independent transcription, constitutes gross misconduct warranting sanction.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: A bail hearing is necessary even if the prosecution does not object or leaves the matter to judicial discretion, since determination of strength of evidence and adequacy of bail under Section 9, Rule 114 requires a hearing. A fortiori, ex parte grant of temporary liberty without bail or recognizance and without hearing is inexcusable, especially where the stated reason — attendance at Sangguniang Bayan sessions — had been rebuked as all prisoners under detention cannot practice profession, business, or hold elective or appointive office. Affidavits of desistance and personal assessment that the accused was not a flight risk do not excuse non-compliance, and respondent herself acknowledged that a motion without proof of service and notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper. Failure to apply such basic law constitutes gross ignorance.
• Gross Misconduct in Altering TSN: Substantial proof, not formal offer of the altered TSN, sustains liability where respondent admitted ordering changes, Mosende testified to receiving the order, the handwritten insertion sheet was attached to the complaint, and two Court of Appeals stenographers' independent transcription of the audio showed the inserted court-fiscal exchanges on a secret witness and witness protection application did not occur. A TSN must faithfully and exactly record all matters transpiring in court; directing a subordinate to incorporate fictitious substantial matters is gross misconduct. The propriety of the dismissal itself was left to the pending certiorari review, but the alteration alone warranted sanction, aggravated by two prior penalties for impropriety with stern warnings.

• Indispensability of Bail Hearing — Where bail is a matter of discretion, grant or denial hinges on whether evidence of guilt is strong, a determination requiring prior hearing for proper exercise of judicial discretion; even where bail is a matter of right or prosecution offers no opposition, a hearing remains required to consider Section 9, Rule 114 guidelines on amount of bail and to question the prosecution on strength of evidence and adequacy of bail. Applied to hold respondent liable for granting temporary liberty without any hearing.
• Motions Without Notice of Hearing as Mere Scrap of Paper — Litigious motions that do not contain a notice of hearing and proof of service are nothing but a useless piece of paper which the court should not act upon, with the three-day notice rule strictly required. Applied because the six very urgent furlough motions lacked notice, were not set for hearing, and were granted in chambers on the same morning they were filed.
• Detained Prisoners Cannot Hold Office or Practice Profession — All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. Applied to reject attendance at Sangguniang Bayan sessions as justification for furloughs.
• Gross Ignorance of the Law — A judge must exhibit more than cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, be conversant with basic principles and well-settled doctrines, and simply apply sufficiently basic law; anything less is gross ignorance. Applied where respondent disregarded elementary hearing and notice requirements despite acknowledging them under questioning.
• Fidelity of Transcript of Stenographic Notes — A TSN is supposed to be a faithful and exact recording of all matters that transpired during a court proceeding. Applied to characterize direction to insert non-existent exchanges as gross misconduct.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Cases — Administrative liability may rest on substantial proof such as admissions, corroborating testimony, documentary insertions, and independent transcription, even without formal offer of the altered document. Applied to sustain gross misconduct despite non-offer of the July 22, 2010 TSN.

• "The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of a bail hearing in petitions for bail." — States the controlling premise that discretion on strength of evidence can only be exercised after hearing, extended a fortiori to furloughs granting temporary liberty.
• "all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention." — Provides the substantive rejection of the furlough justification based on elective office.
• "When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be gross ignorance of the law." — Supplies the canonical formulation of gross ignorance applied to elementary motion and bail rules.
• "is supposed to be a faithful and exact recording of all matters that transpired during a court proceeding." — Defines the TSN standard whose breach grounded the gross misconduct finding.

• Villanueva vs. Judge Buaya, 650 Phil. 9 (2010) — Followed as controlling precedent holding a judge administratively liable for gross ignorance for granting ex parte bail without hearing and stressing indispensability of hearing.
• People vs. Hon. Maceda, 380 Phil. 1, 5 (2000) — Followed, as reiterated in Trillanes, for the rule that detained prisoners cannot practice profession or hold office while in detention.
• Trillanes IV vs. Judge Pimentel, Sr., 578 Phil. 1002, 1015 (2008) — Cited as reiteration of People vs. Hon. Maceda rejecting official functions as basis for liberty while detained.
• Atty. Adalim-White vs. Judge Bugtas, 511 Phil. 615, 627 (2005) — Quoted for the definition of gross ignorance requiring judges to know and apply basic law.
• Basco vs. Judge Rapatalo, 336 Phil. 214, 220-221 (1997) — Cited for the basic rule that bail hearing is necessary even without prosecution objection.
• Judge Almario vs. Atty. Resus, 376 Phil. 857, 867 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that a TSN must faithfully record proceedings.
• Mayor Lim vs. Judge White, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2147, November 10, 2008 — Cited as prior penalty of reprimand and warning for unbecoming conduct, justifying increased penalty for recidivism.
• Sulse vs. Judge White, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2474, February 3, 2014 — Cited as second prior penalty of P10,000.00 fine with stern warning, further justifying one-year suspension.

• Section 9, Rule 114, Rules of Court — Sets guidelines for fixing amount of bail; cited to require a hearing in every bail application to allow consideration of those guidelines and evaluation of strength of evidence.
• Rules on Motions – Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service, and Three-Day Notice Rule — Require litigious motions to contain notice of hearing and proof of service and to comply with the three-day notice; non-compliant motions are mere scraps of paper. Applied to invalidate ex parte action on the six furlough motions granted without setting for hearing.
• Section 1, Rule 140, Rules of Court — Governs discipline of judges for unbecoming conduct; referenced as basis for respondent's two prior penalties for impropriety.

Carpio, J., Chairperson, Brion, J., Mendoza, J., Leonen, J.