Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The general rule is that prior conviction of the regional trial court for the
offense charged, the accused is entitled to be released on bail as a matter
of right. Present exceptions thereto being in the circumstance is that when
the accused is charged with a capital offense or offense punishable with
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or death and the evidence of guilt
is strong, the right to bail becomes discretionary. The general rule is that
upon a proper application for the admission to bail, with the court having
the custody of the accused, should grant after the hearing conducted to
specifically determine the conditions of bail of the accused. On the other
hand the bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion of the court under
the exceptions to the rule, a hearing mandatory in nature which should be
summary otherwise x x x x .
The burden of proof is with the prosecution to show that the evidence
meets the required quantum.
Commendador et. Al versus De Villa [Right to Bail;Military; Exception to
the Bill of Rigthts; Justification]
The was was all about 4 consolidated cases since it involves the same
parties. The petitioners and private respondents faced the the prosecution
for coup d at. The petitioners were members of the Armed forces of the
Phil. Which faced charges for Violation of war and murder.
Before the charges were set to, a Pre-Trial Investigation Panel was
constituted, with the duty to conduct investigations against the
petitioners. In the course of the investigation, Petitioners light questioned
the conduct of the PTI, where in he applied for bail and but was then
denied by GCM 14. The petitioner applied for a petition for certiorari and
mandamus with a prayer of provisional liberty and injunction before the
RTCourt and as such was granted. However De Villa refused to release
petitioners for provisional Liberty pending final resolution of appeal to
have undertaken before the court invoking that the military officers are
exempt from the right to bail granted under the constitution. Decision was
rendered reiterating the provisional release of the petitioners stating that
their was a mistake in the presumption of the respondents that bail does
not apply among military men facing charges before the higher court.
WON: The Military men are exempt from the Constitutional Guarantee on
the right of Bail
Held: Yes, the court reversed the decision of the lower court For the
release of the petitioners. The Bail invoked by the petitioners is not
available to the military as an exemption to the general rule embodied in
the Bill of Rights. The right of speedy trial is given more emphasis in
military where the right to bail does not exist. Justification to this rule
involves a unique structure of the military and national security
considerations which may result to damaging precedents that mutinous
denied to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of what ever
stage of criminal action.
Such rule applies equally to coup dettat and rape and other offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua, is beyond cavil. Within the class of
offenses covered by the stated range of penalty, there is clearly no
distinction as to the political complexion of or moral turpitude in the
offense charged.
In the present case it is uncontroverted that the petitioners application to
bail and for recognizance for the release was denied. The determination of
whether the evidence of guilt is strong, whether ascertained at the
hearing of an application for bail imported from a courts judgement of
conviction, justifies the detention of the accused as a valid curtailment of
his right to provisional liberty, This accentuates the provision that the
denial of the right to bail in such cases is regardless of any stage of
criminal action.
Such Justification for confinement with its underlying rationale of public
self-defense applies to all equally to detention prisoners like Trillanes
detained. or Jalosjos convicted. Necessary consequence of arrest or
detention is that any person cannot engage in business, office, profession
or hold office, whether appointive or elective while in detention.
Docent-Caspe versus Bugtas [Duties of the Judge in application for
bail;Hearing is indispensable in for a grant or denial of bail; Gross
ignorance of law; Failure to Adduce evidence.]
The facts of the case was all about an administrative Case against the
judge for gross ignorance of the law. Such case stemmed from a murder
case against Celso and Juan Docel for the death of Lucio Docena. The
complainant alleged that Judge Alvarez of MTC of Samar, is the one who
conducted the Preliminary investigation against the murder case and
latter then issued a warrant of arrest against Juan and Celso Docel. No bail
was recommended to both of them who remained at large.
The information then was filed before the RTC Samar which was presided
by judge Alvarez, who in turn granted bail bond to each of both accused
for the amount of 60k. The Provencial prosecutor then filed before the
RTC which was presided by RESPONDENT JUSDGE BUGTAS, a motion of
alias warrant to be issued against the other accused and that both of the
accused be denied of bail. Said motion was then granted by the judge.
Celso who was apprehended filed a motion for reconsideration praying
that he be allowed to bail as a matter of right and that both of the First
investigating judge and Assistant prosecutor recommended bail for 60k
for his temporary release.
However it was denied by the RTC judge, contending that there is nothing
on the records would show that there is previous recommendation of the
grant of bail for his temporary Liberty. The accused then filed an MR
Stating the same contentions. Filed a manifestation that there is a
previous recommendation of bail against him and the co-accused.
Prosecution failed to present evidence.
RTC granted the said motion of the accused and granted bail ON THE
BASIS OF PREVIOUS ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED.
The complainant filed an administrative case against the respondent
judge contending that respondent judge granted bail to the accused
without conducting a bail hearing.
WON: hearing is required in granted bail whether it is a matter of right or
discretion
Held: YES, jurisprudence replete with decisions of necessity of an hearing
wether summary or otherwise, relevant to the grant of bail especially on
the cases involving offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, or
imprisonment, where bail is a matter of right or discretion, under the
present rules , hearing is required in granting bail whether bail is a matter
of right or discretion. It must be stressed that the grant or the denial of
bail in cases where bail is a matter of discretion hinges on the issue of
whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong, and the
determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of
judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the latter to
properly exercise his discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to
determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
Clearly therefore, the respondent Judge cannot seek refuge on the alleged
belated objection of the prosecution to the order dated July 22, 1994
issued by his predecessor, Judge Paterno T. Alvarez; nor on the
prosecutions failure to file a comment to the accuseds motion for
reconsideration of the August 11, 2000 order denying the application for
bail.
Clearly therefore, the respondent Judge cannot seek refuge on the alleged
belated objection of the prosecution to the order dated July 22, 1994
issued by his predecessor, Judge Paterno T. Alvarez; nor on the
prosecutions failure to file a comment to the accuseds motion for
reconsideration of the August 11, 2000 order denying the application for
bail.
It is certainly erroneous for the respondent to rely on the order of Judge
Paterno T. Alvarez. As a responsible judge, he should have looked into the
real and hard facts of the case before him and ascertained personally
whether the evidence of guilt is strong.14 To make things worse,
respondent Judge relied on the said July 22, 1994 order despite the fact
that the same appears to have been issued by his predecessor Judge also
without a hearing and while the accused was at large. In addition to the
requirement of a mandatory bail hearing, respondent judge should have
known the basic rule that 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 someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.15
In Basco v. Rapatalo,16 the Court laid down the following rules which
outlined the duties of a judge in case an application for bail is filed:
(1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or
require him to submit his recommendation;
(2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or
not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of
the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
discretion;
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on
the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon
the approval of the bailbond. Otherwise, petition should be denied.
Based on the above-cited procedure and requirements, after the hearing,
the courts order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution.17 A summary is defined as a comprehensive
and usually brief abstract or digest of a text or statement. Based on the
summary of evidence, the judge formulates his own conclusion on
whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the
accused.18
In the instant case, it appears that when the respondent judge initially
granted the prosecutions motion praying that the accused be denied bail,
no hearing was conducted. Irrespective of his opinion on the strength or
weakness of evidence of the accuseds guilt, he should have conducted a
hearing and thereafter made a summary of the evidence for the
prosecution. The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of evidence
cannot be downplayed, these are considered aspects of procedural due
process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will
invalidate the grant or denial of bail.
The judge was ordered to pay the complainant 20k and sternly warned.
People versus Judge Gako & Go [The duties of the judge in granting bail;
Hearing Mandatory; Custody of the law]
The case was all about the petitioner who was charged with murder before
the RTC but was convicted with homicide for the killing of de las alas and
sentenced to suffer a indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of
prision mayor as minimum to reclusion temporal to 12 years and 1 days
as maximum. Petitioner appealed to CA, but pending the appeal he
applied urgent application for the admission to bail. He claimed that due
to his age and health, there is low probability of risk of flight for his part.
CA denied his application to bail and invoked the bedrock principle that
the extension to grant bail during the pending appeal shall be exercised
with grave caution and only for strong reason. The CA considered the
Petitioners Conviction. It made a preliminary investigation on its case and
made a prima facie determination that was no reason substantial enough
to overturn the evidence of pet. Guilt. Pet. Filed an m.r but was denied.
WON: in an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant sentenced
by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment for more than six years,
does the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal mean
that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances
mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court?
Held: No
Sec. 5 rules of court: bail when discretionary
Upon conviction of the accused before the Regional Trial Court, of an
offense NOT punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
ADMISSION TO BAIL IS DISCRETIONARY.
----x x x x x --IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS IMPRISONMENT
EXCEEDING SIX YEARS, THE ACCUSED SHALL BE DENIED BAIL, OR HIS BAIL
SHALL BE CANCELLED UPON A SHOWING BY THE PROSECUTION, WITH
NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED, OF THE FOLLOWING OR SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES.
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent,
or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of
reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without a
valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole,
or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of
flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime
during the pendency of the appeal.
The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where
the penalty imposed on the appellant applying for bail is imprisonment
exceeding six years. The first scenario deals with the circumstances
enumerated in the said paragraph (namely, recidivism, quasi-recidivism,
habitual delinquency or commission of the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration; previous escape from legal confinement,
evasion of sentence or violation of the conditions of his bail without a valid
justification; commission of the offense while under probation, parole or
conditional pardon; circumstances indicating the probability of flight if
released on bail; undue risk of committing another crime during the
pendency of the appeal; or other similar circumstances) not present. The
second scenario contemplates the existence of at least one of the said
circumstances.
e. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court wherein a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years is imposed,
and not one of the circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar
circumstance is present and proved, bail is a matter of discretion (Sec. 5);
f. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court imposing a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years, and any of
the circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is
present and proved, no bail shall be granted by said court (Sec. 5); x x
x[24] (emphasis supplied)
Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when
the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. On the other hand, upon conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of discretion.
Similarly, if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6)
years then bail is a matter of discretion, except when any of the
enumerated circumstances under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is
present then bail shall be denied.[25] (emphasis supplied)
In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This
means that, if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the
discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal
may be denied even if the bail-negating[26] circumstances in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. In other words, the appellate
courts denial of bail pending appeal where none of the said circumstances
exists does not, by and of itself, constitute abuse of discretion.
On the other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court exercises a
more stringent discretion, that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the
enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no
other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Conversely, if
the appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion
will thereby be committed.
Given these two distinct scenarios, therefore, any application for bail
pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1)
the determination of discretion stage, where the appellate court must
determine whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 is present; this will establish whether or not the
appellate court will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in
resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of
discretion stage where, assuming the appellants case falls within the first
scenario allowing the exercise of sound discretion, the appellate court
may consider all relevant circumstances, other than those mentioned in
the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the demands of
equity and justice;[27] on the basis thereof, it may either allow or disallow
bail.
On the other hand, if the appellants case falls within the second scenario,
the appellate courts stringent discretion requires that the exercise thereof
be primarily focused on the determination of the proof of the presence of
any of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance of bail. This
is so because the existence of any of those circumstances is by itself
sufficient to deny or revoke bail. Nonetheless, a finding that none of the
said circumstances is present will not automatically result in the grant of
bail. Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent
sound discretion approach.
Petitioner disregards the fine yet substantial distinction between the two
different situations that are governed by the third paragraph of Section 5,
Rule 114. Instead, petitioner insists on a simplistic treatment that unduly
dilutes the import of the said provision and trivializes the established
policy governing the grant of bail pending appeal.
The judicial discretion granted to the proper court (the Court of Appeals in
this case) to rule on applications for bail pending appeal must necessarily
involve the exercise of judgment on the part of the court. The court must
be allowed reasonable latitude to express its own view of the case, its
appreciation of the facts and its understanding of the applicable law on
the matter.[31] In view of the grave caution required of it, the court should
consider whether or not, under all circumstances, the accused will be
present to abide by his punishment if his conviction is affirmed.[32] It
should also give due regard to any other pertinent matters beyond the
record of the particular case, such as the record, character and reputation
of the applicant,[33] among other things. More importantly, the discretion
to determine allowance or disallowance of bail pending appeal necessarily
includes, at the very least, an initial determination that the appeal is not
frivolous but raises a substantial question of law or fact which must be
determined by the appellate court.[34] In other words, a threshold
requirement for the grant of bail is a showing that the appeal is not pro
forma and merely intended for delay but presents a fairly debatable issue.
[35] This must be so; otherwise, the appellate courts will be deluged with
frivolous and time-wasting appeals made for the purpose of taking
advantage of a lenient attitude on bail pending appeal. Even more
significantly, this comports with the very strong presumption on appeal
that the lower courts exercise of discretionary power was sound,[36]
specially since the rules on criminal procedure require that no judgment
shall be reversed or modified by the Court of Appeals except for
substantial error.[37]
Section 13, Article II of the Constitution provides:
SEC. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. x x x (emphasis supplied)
they negotiated with the petitioners. The private respondents then issued
a check to Bongcac for the promise that they will construct the stall in the
market. However at the time relevant to the case Bongcacs promise did
not materialize, both bon and lim asked Bongcac for the return of the
money or the constructed stalls. Bongcac fail to furnish the money that is
being given by Bon and Lim. Bon and Lim initiated a case against Bongcac
for Estafa before the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan rendered a judgement, guilty beyon reasonable doubt
against Bongcac for 2 criminal cases filed against him.
Bongcac filed a motion for recon but was denied. petitioner filed a petition
for review on certiorari[4] with SC, which was docketed as G.R. Nos.
149711-12. The petition sought the reversal of the 28 March 2001
Decision of the Sandiganbayan. But it was denied.
the Sandiganbayan issued a notice to petitioner and counsel directing
them to be present on 8 January 2003 for the execution of judgment in the
criminal cases. petitioner filed in G.R. Nos. 149711-12 a Very Urgent
Petition for Extraordinary Relief with this Court. The petition sought to
reverse and set aside the decision of the Sandiganbayan and to declare
that petitioner is acquitted of the offense charged.
petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan, in Criminal Case Nos. 18005 and
18006, a Manifestation and Very Urgent Motion to Suspend Further
Proceedings praying that the execution of judgment be held in abeyance
to await the action of this Court on the Very Urgent Petition for
Extraordinary Relief he filed in G.R. Nos. 149711-12.[9]
the Fourth Division[10] of the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution in
Criminal Case Nos. 18005 and 18006 denying, for lack of merit,
petitioners Manifestation and Very Urgent Motion to Suspend Further
Proceedings. It further directed the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest
against petitioner to serve the sentence imposed upon him. The cash
bond posted by petitioner for his temporary liberty was ordered cancelled.
Petitioner was given five days to voluntarily surrender.
this Court issued a Resolution in G.R. Nos. 149711-12 denying, for lack of
merit, the Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief. Petitioner then
went to S.C
WON: The resolution of the present petition hinges on the sole issue of
whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in denying petitioners motion to hold in
abeyance the execution of judgment.
Held:
Petitioner cannot perpetually file any petition or pleading to forestall the
execution of a final judgment. Execution of a final judgment is the fruit
and end of the suit. While a litigants right to initiate an action in court is
fully respected, once his case has been adjudicated by a competent court
in a valid final judgment, he should not be permitted to initiate similar
suits in the hope of securing a favorable ruling. The 28 March 2001
Sandiganbayan Decision has attained finality. Such definitive judgment is
no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal. Upon
finality of the judgment, the Court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify
or alter the same. Except for correction of clerical errors or the making of
nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the
judgment is void, the judgment can neither be amended nor altered after
it has become final and executory. This is the principle of immutability of
final judgment. In Lim v. Jabalde,[13] this Court further explained the
necessity of adhering to the doctrine of immutability of final judgments,
thus:
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere and it is
essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a
judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere
subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore
guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result.
Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should
frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
Every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final,
executory and unappealable. For just as a losing party has the right to file
an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the
correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the
execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the life of the law.[14]
To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to
frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts. It is in the
interest of justice that we should write finis to this litigation.
Consequently, we find no grave abuse of discretion when the
Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion to hold in abeyance the
execution of judgment.
On the cancellation of petitioners cash bailbond as ordered in the
Resolution of 10 January 2003 of the Sandiganbayan, the cancellation of
the bailbond was due to the execution of the final judgment of conviction.
Section 22 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
expressly provides:
SEC. 22. Cancellation of bail. - Upon application of the bondsmen, with
due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of
the accused or proof of his death.
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the
accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction.