Cortes v Catral

Flaviano Cortes filed a complaint against Judge Catral with Gross Ignorance of the Law for
granting bail:
1. In 2 murder cases without hearing even though they are classified as heinous crimes
and should supposedly be unbailable
2. For reducing the bail granted by the provincial prosecutor from P180,000 to P30,000 in
the case of illegal possession of firearm.
3. In a homicide case with a bail bond of P14,800 which amount is too low
Catrals reply: Cortes is a character assassinator and public nuisance.
o For the first charge, Catral said that the provincial prosecutor recommended P200k as
bail bond for each of the accused and in a motion for reduction of bail, since the
prosecution had only weak circumstantial evidence and guided by the factors prescribed
in S9 of Administrative Circular 12-94, he issued an order for reduction of the bailbond
from P200,000 to P50,000.
o In the other case for murder, the inquest judge issued a warrant of arrest with no bail
recommended, but when the case was elevated to the RTC when the information was
filed, the information made no mention of bail, thus in the hearing of the petition to
determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce
evidence and recommended bail in the sum of P200,000 instead. Judge Catral, again,
relied on S9 of AC 12-94 along with the evidence on record, to grant bail
o Judge Catral presented a letter from the trial prosecutor addressed to the provincial
prosecutor to disprove the accusation that he granted bail without any hearing
o As for the illegal possession of firearm charge, the bail recommended by the prosecutor
was P180k, but the accuseds counsel filed a motion for reduction of bail to P30k and
vouched and guaranteed the appearance of the accused in court, whenever required.
This was granted because the motion was submitted without any serious opposition and
the prosecutor knew that there was no actual firearm taken from the accuseds
possession.
o As for the homicide case, Catral states that the bail was recommended by the acting
officer-in-charge and merely acted on his recommendation, mindful of the guidelines in
fixing a reasonable amount of bail and the fact that the evidence on record was merely
circumstantial and there was no eyewitness to the commission of crime.
Judge Catral submitted an additional comment where he stated that the letter of Cortes to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was dismissed. Also, despite the reduction of the
bail in the cases cited, the accused remained detention prisoners because of their failure to
post bond
o The OCA also recommended the dismissal of the complaint because Cortes failed to
show any indication that bad faith motivated the granting and reducing the amount of bail
o The increase or reduction of bail rests in the sound discretion of the court depending
upon the particular circumstances of the case
o Also, the reduction of the amount of bail were done with the conformity of the public
prosecutor concerned

W/N the reductions or grants of the bail bonds by Judge Catral were valid NO
-

Judge Catral granted bail to an accused charged with murder, without having conducted any
hearing as to whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong twice

In one of the murder cases, the bail was recommended at P200k, but was set by Catral
at P50k. The records dont reveal whether a hearing was actually conducted on the
application for bail even though Catral implies that there was one. However, the order
granting the reduced bail did not contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution.
o In the other murder case, the inquest judge didnt recommend bail, but when the case
was elevated to Judge Catral and in the hearing to determine whether or not the
evidence of guilt against the accused was strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce
evidence and recommended bail be set at P200k, but was reduced to P50k upon
motion. Catral granted it, but again the order granting the bail didnt contain a summary
of the evidence presented by the prosecution
Catrals contention: insists that a hearing was actually conducted on the application and
motion for reduction of bail, but the public prosecutor opted not to introduce evidence and
submitted the resolution of the petition to the sound discretion of the court instead
o Also, since the prosecution of criminal case is under the direct control of the fiscal, it
wouldnt be procedurally proper to compel the prosecutor to show evidence of guilt of the
accused when the prosecutor already admitted in open court that the strength of
evidence on hand for the state can only prove the crime of homicide and not murder
SC: the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the prosecution
chooses to just file a comment or leave the application of bail to the sound discretion of the
court.
o It is important for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching questions from which it
may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt even if the prosecutor refuses to adduce
evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail.
Since the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong
is a matter of judicial discretion, it can only be exercised after evidence is submitted to the
court at the hearing.
o A proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to
the court, the petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce evidence
in his own rebuttal.
Catral cannot justify his grant of bail just because the prosecutor recommended it. He is not
bound by the recommendation of the prosecutor and the affidavits and sworn statements of
the witnesses are mere hearsay statements which could hardly be the basis for determining
whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong
Moreover, the order granting the bail did not contain a summary of the evidence presented
by the prosecution.
o The rule is that the courts granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution, otherwise the order granting or denying bail may be
invalidated because the summary of the evidence for the prosecution which contains the
judges evaluation of the evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due
process for both the prosecution and the defense
Moreover, in one of the cases, even though the accused was yet to be arrested, Judge
Catral already fixed bail in the sum of P200k.
o Catral evidently knew that the accused were still at large as he even had to direct their
arrest in the same order where he simultaneously granted them bail
o This is against the rule which directs 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
As for the case of illegal possession of fire arm, there was no showing of bad faith in Catrals
part rightfully dismissed
o

As for the homicide case, there is no showing of irregularity here. Judge Catral rightfully
granted the bail as it was in accordance with the guidelines.
In sum, Catral is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting bail without the requisite
hearing

Side notes:
- Bail is the security required by the court and given by the accused to ensure that the
accused appears before the proper court at the scheduled time and place to answer the
charges brought against him or her
- It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt and to enable him to prepare his defense without being
subject to punishment prior to conviction
- Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case.
o The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the accused at the
trial, yet reasonable enough to comply with the constitutional provision that bail should
not be excessive.
o Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of
hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked
for his recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to
take into account a number of factors such as the applicants character and
reputation, forfeiture of other bonds, or whether he is a fugitive from justice
- When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or
otherwise in the discretion of the court, not only to take into account the guidelines set
forth in S9, R114, ROC, primarily to determine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or
lack of it, against the accused
o Summary hearing: brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence
of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely to
determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail.
o On such hearing, the court wont try the merits or speculate the outcome of the case.
The course of inquiry is left to the courts discretion which may confine itself to
receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding
unnecessary thoroughness in the examination and cross examination
Duties of trial judge in an application for bail:
1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, 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 sound discretion;
(Section 7 and 8, supra)
3. Decide whether the 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 (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied