By BEHN FER. HORTALEZA, JR.T

TAYUG – Regional Trial Court Judge Ulysses R. Butuyan of Branch 52 here has been introducing a series of unorthodox or non-traditional rules in dispensing justice especially directed to benefit poor clients who cannot afford onerous charges related to their cases.

Butuyan, by his own admission, has departed from the traditional way of fixing bail bonds to benefit the accused charged in his sala who are too poor to afford to post the same.

He took the initiative of imposing what he called “solidary bail bonds” since a year ago in his courtroom in cases where there are two or more accused and when the offense committed is lesser than the crime of murder.

This was not the first time Butuyan practically courted sanctions from Higher Court for “changing” the rules.

Earlier, in a bid to respond to complaints of excessive charges by some newspaper publishers, he allowed litigants in special court proceedings to choose the newspaper in which to publish their court orders as mandated under the law, virtually exempting such court notices from the mandated regular raffles among newspapers.

Butuyan noted that since he allowed the litigants in special proceedings the liberty to publish their judicial
notices to publishers of their choice, no one has complained yet.

On his resort to solidary bond for accused, he also noted that it is not according to the Constitution but that there was nothing wrong with it. “I’ve been doing this (solidary bail bond) for about a year already. It’s not according to rules,” the judge said.

Acknowledging that he was the first judge in the Philippines and perhaps in the world to impose the posting of solidary bail bond if the accused charged in his sala are poor, Butuyan said this practice can be considered by other judges for humanitarian reason.

In fact, it is something that not only the other judges but lawyers and even other people who have cases to consider if the latter ever apply for bail.

Butuyan said the solidary bail bond will benefit the poor people who are two or more persons charged with the same offense, like homicide, estafa, theft and others.

The solidary bail bond rule he has drawn up and effected in his sala works on the “principle” that all the accused must agree to perform or pay an indebtedness, not on a sharing basis as far as they, on the one hand, and the creditor, on the other hand, are concerned.

Under this “principle”, once the obligation is due or demandable or payable, the creditor or the obligee has the right to choose who between them (obligor) to collect from.He claimed that because of this undertaking, no one can complain.

Butuyan said that under the solidary bail bond he arbitrarily decided upon to implement, the court may fix a bail bond not for each and every one but the bail bond for everybody when the accused in a certain crime lesser than murder are two or more
persons.

In ordinary course of fixing bail, the court fixes an amount that the accused, say four or more, would have to post in order to be granted provisional liberty. Under this practice, only those who can post the bail bond required by the court can go free provisionally.

If the court required, for instance, P100,000 bail bond per accused, therefore they have to produce an aggregate of P400,000.The problem is if they are poor or simple farmers, they can produce only P200,000, instead of P400,000 or P50,000n each.

Butuyan said if the accused asked to post solidary bail bond, the judge can accept P200,000 “not as bail bond for each and everyone but the bail bond for everybody”.

In any breach of that guarantee or if the accused does not show when required by the court, the latter goes after the bail bond and forfeit it in favor of the government.

Butuyan said there were lawyers appearing before his sala who were surprised why he practices the unorthodox way of fixing bail bonds through the solidary way and even tried to ask some judges if they were also practicing the same.

Unfortunately, said Butuyan, some judges refuse to adopt the practice because, according to him, perhaps they do not
understand what a solidary obligation is.

The judge admitted he based his “rule” on the Civil Code of the Philippines which recognizes two obligations, one is solidary and the other is joint.

Explaining further, he suggested: “This practice can be applied to husband and wife who are accused and even to the worst of enemies for as long as they agree that their bail bond is solidary,” he said.

He cited the cases of spouses Emmanuel Reyes and Editha Reyes who were charged with estafa in two criminal cases filed in his sala in which Butuyan set a solidary bail bond of P125,000 to guarantee the provisional liberty of both accused and in both cases, once posted in full.

In granting the solidary bail bond for the couple, Butuyan made it clear that default of one accused shall result in the forfeiture of the entire bail and the re-incarceration of both the defaulting
and the other accused