Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos vs.
Court of Appeals Neither were Aman and Martin presented during the bail
G.R. Number 169711 | 612 SCRA 1 | February 8, 2010 | Abad, J.
Petition: Review on Certiorari
Petitioners: Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos
Respondents: Court of Appeals, and Johnny Co y Yu
Rule 114, Rules of Court
DOCTRINE
 Bail may be granted by RTC for crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua, if
the evidence of guilt of accused is not strong, as in this case.
 Grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused
that depends on conviction by final judgment.
FACTS
 Assailants attacked the home of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos, killing her and
her uncle (Erasmo Palma), and injuring another uncle (Victor Palma) and a
friend (Benigno Oquendo)
o Police theory is that the attack was motivated by a land transaction,
between Sarah’s live-in partner, David So, and respondent Johnny Co,
which had turned sour
 Four months after, Cresencio Aman and Romeo Martin were arrested
o Both executed confessions, allegedly admitting their participation, and
naming Artemio Bergonia and Danilo Say, who allegedly helped them,
and Co as the mastermind
o After RTC trial, both Aman and Martin were acquitted
 10 years from the incident, Co surrendered to the NBI
o Prosecution charged him with two counts of murder and two
counts of frustrated murder (murder is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death; for frustrated murder, Art. 250 of RPC provides
that Court “may” impose penalty one degree lower than that of
consummated murder)
o Upon arraignment, Co pleaded not guilty
o Co filed a petition admission for bail, which was granted by the
RTC on the ground that the evidence of guilt of Co was not strong
o Evidence of prosecution
 Aman and Martin’s extrajudicial confessions that pointed to Co
as the mastermind
 David’s testimony that Aman supposedly told David that Co
was the mastermind
 Police Officer Leopoldo Vasquez, assistant leader of police
team that investigated the case, conducted two operations to
capture Co, but Co was successful in evading both (first
instance was in a restaurant where he became suspicious and
left
o RTC had low estimate of the prosecution’s evidence
 Extrajudicial confessions, apart from having been irregularly
executed, only proved the participation of Aman and Martin,
and not the fact that Co was the mastermind of the assault.
hearing (Aman was allegedly dead, Martin could not be
located). To admit their sworn statements would violate Co’s
constitutional right to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
 David’s narrations were contradictory, self-serving and
uncorroborated.
 P.O. Vasquez’s story was uncorroborated. Also, flight per se is
not a sign of guilt. A clear showing of the identity of the
offender and his evasion of arrest is necessary. The
prosecution failed to establish Co’s identity as the assailant
and his reason for fleeing from the police.
 Prosecution also failed to prove that the offer of settlement
came from Co
 Upon appeal to the CA (via special civil action for certiorari with prayer for
TRO or preliminary injunction), CA dismissed the appeal for having been
filed without the intervention of the OSG
ISSUES
1. W/N the dismissal was proper – YES
2. W/N the grant of bail was proper – YES
RULING & RATIO
1. Dismissal is proper since in every criminal case for a non-private crime,
the State, as the aggrieved party, must be included, through the OSG
2. The grant of bail was proper since the RTC was able to conclude, based
on the facts and the evidence presented and testimonies collected, that
the evidence of guilt of Co was not strong.
a. In this case, since the crime charged was murder (punished by
reclusion perpetua) and frustrated murder (one degree lower
than reclusion perpetua if the court decides so), and evidence of
guilt is not strong, it was proper for the RTC to grant bail
b. Unlike in the case of Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz where the
trial court exercised grave abuse of discretion for granting bail
without conducting any hearing at all; here, the trial court took
time to hear the parade of witnesses that the prosecution
presented before reaching the conclusion that the evidence of
guilt of Co was not strong.
c. The question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of
the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in
the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no
impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on
conviction by final judgment. Here, Co has already been
arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when
warranted, could proceed even in his absence.
DISPOSITION
 Petition DENIED
Page 1 of 1