Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 709 views

    Lachica Vs Tormis

    Uploaded by

    Bruce Estillote
    1) A judge released a detained person without a proper court order, claiming the person had posted cash bail when in fact the judge personally received the cash bail, which judges are not authorized to do under the rules. 2) The rules specify that cash bail can only be deposited with revenue collectors or treasurers, not with judges. 3) The judge was found to have committed gross misconduct by abusing her authority in personally accepting the cash bail when not authorized to do so, and by making untruthful statements to mislead the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Lachica Vs Tormis

    Uploaded by

    Bruce Estillote
    709 views2 pages
    1) A judge released a detained person without a proper court order, claiming the person had posted cash bail when in fact the judge personally received the cash bail, which judges are not authorized to do under the rules. 2) The rules specify that cash bail can only be deposited with revenue collectors or treasurers, not with judges. 3) The judge was found to have committed gross misconduct by abusing her authority in personally accepting the cash bail when not authorized to do so, and by making untruthful statements to mislead the court.

    Original Description:

    Lachica vs Tormis Digest

    Original Title

    Lachica vs Tormis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A judge released a detained person without a proper court order, claiming the person had posted cash bail when in fact the judge personally received the cash bail, which judges are not authorized to do under the rules. 2) The rules specify that cash bail can only be deposited with revenue collectors or treasurers, not with judges. 3) The judge was found to have committed gross misconduct by abusing her authority in personally accepting the cash bail when not authorized to do so, and by making untruthful statements to mislead the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    709 views2 pages

    Lachica Vs Tormis

    Uploaded by

    Bruce Estillote
    1) A judge released a detained person without a proper court order, claiming the person had posted cash bail when in fact the judge personally received the cash bail, which judges are not authorized to do under the rules. 2) The rules specify that cash bail can only be deposited with revenue collectors or treasurers, not with judges. 3) The judge was found to have committed gross misconduct by abusing her authority in personally accepting the cash bail when not authorized to do so, and by making untruthful statements to mislead the court.

    Copyright:

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

    TRINIDAD O.

    LACHICA, complainant, vs
    JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, respondent.
    A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609 September 20, 2005
    FACTS:
    On July 2, 2003, Domugho was apprehended by PO3 Epifanio G. Sanjorjo at around 8:45
    p.m. and was placed under PNP custody at 9:30 p.m. However, on July 3, 2003, at around 8:30
    a.m., complainant was surprised to receive a call from the accused informing her that she was
    released on July 2, 2003 at 10:00 p.m. 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
    the respondent judge called the police station and told the desk officer that the accused had
    posted a cash bail bond and may already be released. However, the case record did not contain
    Order of Release. During the investigation, it was established that the accused was indeed set
    free without a release order at 10:00 PM. Respondent judge claimed that she issued the Order of
    Release on July 2, 2003 at around 7:00 p.m., which she also claimed was received by SP01
    James Estrera. An examination of the records, however, discloses that what SPO1 Estrera
    received was only a copy of the Receipt of the Cash Bail Bond dated July 2, 2003 and not the
    Order of Release. It was improbable that, as claimed by respondent judge, she issued the Order
    of Release on July 2, 2003 at around 7:00 p.m. considering that the accused was apprehended at
    8:45 p.m. It is also undisputed that respondent judge personally received the cash bail bond for
    the accused.

    ISSUE: Whether the judge is guilty of gross misconduct by her act of receiving the cash
    bond.
    RULING:

    The Court rules in the affirmative.


    In the case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Fernandez, the Court held that: The
    rules specify the persons with whom a cash bail bond may be deposited namely: the collector of
    internal revenue, or the provincial, city or municipal treasurer. Section 14 of Rule 114 of the
    Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000) provides:
    SEC. 14. Deposit of Cash as bail The accused 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 of the bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the
    prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. xxx

    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.

    The 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
    making untruthful statements in her comment and during the investigation of the instant
    administrative case with intent to mislead this Court. For this act alone, respondent is already
    administratively liable. Section 14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
    specifies the persons with whom a cash bail bond may be deposited, namely: the collector of
    internal revenue or the provincial, city or municipal treasurer. A judge is not authorized to
    receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should such cash be kept in his office.

    You might also like