SANDIGANBAYAN 396 SCRA 443 During the hearing on May 4, 2001 on
(2003) petitioners Urgent Petition for Bail, the prosecution moved for the resetting of the FACTS: arraignment of the accused earlier than the June Before the Court are two petitions for 27, 2001 schedule. However, the Sandiganbayan certiorari filed by petitioner Edward Serapio, denied the motion of the prosecution and issued assailing the resolutions of the Third Division of an order declaring that the petition for bail can the Sandiganbayan denying his petition for bail, and should be heard before petitioners motion for a reinvestigation and motion to arraignment on June 27, 2001 and even before quash, and a petition for habeas corpus, all in the other accused filed their respective petitions relation to Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder for bail. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan set the wherein petitioner is one of the accused hearing for the reception of evidence on together with former President Joseph E. petitioners petition for bail on May 21 to 25, Estrada, Jose Jinggoy P. Estrada and several 2001. others. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution Petitioner was a member of the Board of requiring the attendance of petitioner as well as Trustees and the Legal Counsel of the Erap all the other accused during the hearings on the Muslim Youth Foundation, a non-stock, petitions for bail under pain of waiver of cross- nonprofit foundation established in February examination. The Sandiganbayan, citing its 2000 ostensibly for the purpose of providing inherent powers to proceed with the trial of the educational opportunities for the poor and case in the manner it determines best conducive underprivileged but deserving Muslim youth and to orderly proceedings and speedy termination students, and support to research and advance of the case, directed the other accused to studies of young Muslim educators and participate in the said bail hearing considering scientists. that under Section 8, Rule 114 of the Revised Petitioner, as trustee of the Foundation, Rules of Court, whatever evidence is adduced received on its behalf a donation in the amount during the bail hearing shall be considered of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200 Million) automatically reproduced at the trial. from Ilocos Sur Governor Luis Chavit Singson. The bail hearing did not proceed because petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan Later that year, Singson publicly accused a motion to quash the amended Information on then president Estrada and his cohorts of the grounds that as against him, the amended engaging in several illegal activities, including its Information does not allege a combination or operation on the illegal numbers game known as series of overt or criminal acts constitutive of jueteng which triggered the Ombudsman to file plunder; as against him, the amended cases of plunder against the former president Information does not allege a pattern of criminal and others who were allegedly involved. acts indicative of an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. By way of riposte, the prosecution The Sandiganbayan set the arraignment objected to the holding of bail hearing until of the accused, including petitioner. In the petitioner agreed to withdraw his motion to meantime, on April 27, 2001, petitioner filed quash. The prosecution contended that with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Petition for petitioners motion to quash the amended Bail which was set for hearing on May 4, 2001. Information was antithetical to his petition for For his part, petitioners coaccused Jose bail. He also filed a petition for Habeas Corpus. Jinggoy Estrada filed on April 20, 2001 a Very Meanwhile, Jose Jinggoy Estrada filed Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that he was with the Sandiganbayan a motion praying that entitled to bail as a matter of right. said court resolve his motion to fix his bail. the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioners motion to quash the amended information is filed against him. The Courts Information. The motion to fix bail filed by Jose pronouncement in Lavides should be Jinggoy Estrada was also denied by the understood in light of the fact that the Sandiganbayan. Jose Jinggoy Estrada filed a accused in said case filed a petition for bail petition for certiorari for the nullification of a as well as a motion to quash the resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his informations filed against him. Hence, we motion to fix bail. explained therein that to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment ISSUES: would be to place him in a position where he 1.)Whether or not petitioner should first be has to choose between (1) filing a motion to arraigned before hearings of his petition for bail quash and thus delay his release on bail may be conducted; because until his motion to quash can be 2.)Whether petitioner may file a motion to resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, quash the amended Information during the and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to pendency of his petition for bail; quash so that he can be arraigned at once 3.)Whether a joint hearing of the petition for bail and thereafter be released on bail. This of petitioner and those of the other accused is would undermine his constitutional right not mandatory; to be put on trial except upon a valid 4.)Whether the People waived their right to complaint or Information sufficient to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for charge him with a crime and his right to bail. bail of petitioner and failed to adduce strong evidence of guilt of petitioner for the crime It is therefore not necessary that an charged accused be first arraigned before the conduct of hearings on his application for HELD/RATIO: bail. For when bail is a matter of right, an accused may apply for and be granted bail 1. NO. even prior to arraignment. The ruling in The arraignment of an accused is not a Lavides also implies that an application for prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on bail in a case involving an offense punishable his petition for bail. A person is allowed to by reclusion perpetua to death may also be petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of heard even before an accused is arraigned. his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary Further, if the court finds in such case that surrender. An accused need not wait for his the accused is entitled to bail because the arraignment before filing a petition for bail. evidence against him is not strong, he may be granted provisional liberty even prior to In cases where it is authorized, bail arraignment; for in such a situation, bail should be granted before arraignment, would be authorized under the otherwise the accused may be precluded circumstances. In fine, the Sandiganbayan from filing a motion to quash. committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in However, the foregoing pronouncement ordering the arraignment of petitioner should not be taken to mean that the before proceeding with the hearing of his hearing on a petition for bail should at all petition for bail. times precede arraignment, because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender 2. YES. may apply for bail as soon as he is deprived The Court finds that no such of his liberty, even before a complaint or inconsistency exists between an application of an accused for bail and his filing of a Procedure of the Sandiganbayan governing motion to quash. Bail is the security given for the hearings of two or more petitions for bail the release of a person in the custody of the filed by different accused or that a petition law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to for bail of an accused be heard guarantee his appearance before any court simultaneously with the trial of the case as required under the conditions set forth against the other accused. The matter of under the Rules of Court. Its purpose is to whether or not to conduct a joint hearing of obtain the provisional liberty of a person two or more petitions for bail filed by two charged with an offense until his conviction different accused or to conduct a hearing of while at the same time securing his said petition jointly with the trial against appearance at the trial. As stated earlier, a another accused is addressed to the sound person may apply for bail from the moment discretion of the trial court. Unless grave that he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of abuse of discretion amounting to excess or his arrest or voluntary surrender. lack of jurisdiction is shown, the Court will not interfere with the exercise by the On the other hand, a motion to quash an Sandiganbayan of its discretion. Information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal It may be underscored that in the complaint or Information filed against him exercise of its discretion, the Sandiganbayan for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or must take into account not only the for defects which are apparent in the face of convenience of the State, including the the Information. An accused may file a prosecution, but also that of the accused and motion to quash the Information, as a the witnesses of both the prosecution and general rule, before arraignment. the accused and the right of accused to a speedy trial. The Sandiganbayan must also These two reliefs have objectives which consider the complexities of the cases and of are not necessarily antithetical to each the factual and legal issues involving other. Certainly, the right of an accused right petitioner and the other accused. After all, if to seek provisional liberty when charged this Court may echo the observation of the with an offense not punishable by death, United States Supreme Court, the State has reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or a stake, with every citizen, in his being when charged with an offense punishable by afforded our historic individual protections, such penalties but after due hearing, including those surrounding criminal evidence of his guilt is found not to be prosecutions. About them, this Court dares strong, does not preclude his right to assail not become careless or complacent when the validity of the Information charging him that fashion has become rampant over the with such offense. It must be conceded, earth. however, that if a motion to quash a criminal complaint or Information on the ground that 4. NO. the same does not charge any offense is Petitioners claim that the prosecution granted and the case is dismissed and the had refused to present evidence to prove his accused is ordered released, the petition for guilt for purposes of his bail application and bail of an accused may become moot and that the Sandiganbayan has refused to grant academic. a hearing thereon is not borne by the records. The prosecution did not waive, 3. NO. expressly or even impliedly, its right to There is no provision in the Revised adduce evidence in opposition to the Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Rules of petition for bail of petitioner. It must be noted that the Sandiganbayan had already scheduled the hearing dates for petitioners application for bail but the same were reset due to pending incidents raised in several motions filed by the parties, which incidents had to be resolved by the court prior to the bail hearings. The bail hearing was eventually scheduled by the Sandiganbayan on July 10, 2001 but the hearing did not push through due to the filing of this petition on June 29, 2001.
The delay in the conduct of hearings on
petitioners application for bail is therefore not imputable solely to the Sandiganbayan or to the prosecution. Petitioner is also partly to blame therefor, as is evident from the following list of motions filed by him and by the prosecution.
When the grant of bail is discretionary,
the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. However, the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge. This discretion by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that 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 his own evidence in rebuttal. Accordingly, petitioner cannot be released from detention until the Sandiganbayan conducts a hearing of his application for bail and resolve the same in his favor. Even then, there must first be a finding that the evidence against petitioner is not strong before he may be granted bail.