PROCEDURE FOR BAIL. ISSUE: W/N the Judge can decide on a petition for bail without a bail hearing.

Transcription

1 PROCEDURE FOR BAIL [A.M. No. RTJ July 26, 1999] EUSEBIO GO, VIRGILIO MANIPUD, JESSICA VILORIA, RODOR S. GAYAO and RAUL GONZALES vs. JUDGE BENJAMIN A. BONGOLAN, Retired, RTC, Branch 2, Bangued, Abra and JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, Branch 58, Bucay, Abra PUNO, J.: A petition for bail was filed by several accused for the crime of kidnapping with ransom. The prosecution in its opposition alleged that the petition is prematurely filed since they are still in the process of presenting further evidence to prove that the crime had been committed by the accused. Nonetheless, Judge Bolongan decided the petition, favoring the accused, based on the evidence presented presuming that the prosecution already adopted the evidence it had adduced in the regular trial when they declined to present additional evidence against a previous motion of the accused seeking to amend the information against them. Moreover, the Judge, in his comment, contended that it is not necessary for the prosecution to present all its witnesses before a motion for bail could be resolved. Thus, he deemed that it was unnecessary to have further hearings. Prosecution alleged that the Judge must be administratively charged for its failure to conduct hearings on the application for bail. ISSUE: W/N the Judge can decide on a petition for bail without a bail hearing. HELD: It is mandatory for a Judge to conduct a bail hearing before deciding a petition for bail to give the prosecution a reasonable time to present its evidence to show that the evidence of guilt is strong against the applicants. The decision is prematurely resolved when it was decided in ignorance of the supposed presentation of witnesses by the prosecution. In a bail application, the right of the accused for the application for a temporary liberty and the right the State to protect the people from danger must be balanced. Such balance is observed when hearings are conducted to guide the discretion of the magistrate.

2 G.R. No August 28, 1995 MIGUEL P. PADERANGA, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES REGALADO, J.: A petition for bail was filed by one of the co-conspirator in a crime of multiple murders. In the trial, only the Assistant Prosecutor appeared for the prosecution despite accused s distribution of copies of the motion to the State Prosecutor and Regional State Prosecutor. The Assistant informed the trial court, upon the directive of their chief, that the prosecution was neither supporting nor opposing the application for bail and that they were submitting it to the sound discretion of the trail judge. He also waived any further presentation of evidence. The trial court admitted the petitioner to bail. The prosecution elevated the issue to the CA which annulled the admission to bail; hence, the petitioner appeals to reinstate the lower court s decision. The prosecution contended that they were not given ample time to oppose the application for bail procedure for bail was violated when the trial court allowed the Assistant Prosecutor to appear in behalf of the prosecution instead of the State Prosecutor who is claimed to be the sole government prosecutor authorized to handle the case. They further claim that the Assistant had no authority to answer the inquiries of the trial court. ISSUE: W/N the prosecution was not afforded equal opportunity to oppose the application for bail; rendering procedural due process violated. HELD: No, the Assistant Prosecutor could validly represent the prosecution because there was a previous authorization given by the State prosecutor to the former as a collaborating prosecutor in the original criminal case which was continuing unless expressly withdrawn. It was found out that the authorization was only withdrawn after the assistant s authority was questioned. Thus, there was no denial or violation of procedural due process because the prosecution was given a reasonable opportunity to present all of its evidence before resolution of the application; however they choose not by an express waiver.

3 G.R. No December 15, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. IRENEO GAKO, JR. (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 5, Cebu City) and VICENTE GO GONZAGA-REYES, J.: Private respondent was accused as co-conspirator in the crime of murder. Due to an illness, he was confined in a hospital by virtue of a motion for confinement. A clinical summary of his illness was filed alongside with a petition for bail. The case was then reraffled and was assigned to the respondent Judge which granted the bail relying on the medical records and the records of the original case without having to go on further hearing. The prosecution sought to inhibit respondent Judge for pre-judging the evidence without carefully evaluating why it cannot sustain a conviction of life imprisonment. ISSUE: W/N petition for bail can be decided based on records of the case alone. HELD: When bail is discretionary, a hearing should be conducted first to determine whether the evidence is strong to convict or not. It may even be in form of a summary hearing, in a brief and speedy method of receiving and considering substantial evidence to determine the weight of evidence for granting bail or not, avoiding unnecessary examination and cross examination. However in this case, there was no hearing at all. It is inconceivable that respondent Judge have appreciated the strength or weakness of the evidence of guilt of the accused without hearing the prosecution side. Reliance on voluminous records of the case would not suffice. The prosecution is entitled to present substantial evidence because it is equally entitled to due process.

4 When May Be Invoked G.R. No February 1, 2000 MANOLET O. LAVIDES, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ROSALINA L. LUNA PISON, Judge Presiding over Branch 107, RTC, Quezon City; and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.: Petitioner was accused for the crime of child abuse under several information filed against him. No bail was recommended by the prosecution but he still filed separate application for bail on the different cases charged against him. The trial court granted the application in all of the cases in the condition, among others, that the approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment to ensure his presence at it and for the trial to proceed even if he becomes absent during the course. ISSUE: W/N right to bail may only be invoked after arraignment. HELD: The trial court is wrong in its theory that there should be an arraignment first before bail could be granted. In cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash the information against him. If the motion to quash was granted, then an arraignment would not be needed anymore. The trial court could even ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings under Rule 114 Sec 2(b) requiring the presence of the accused whenever required and under Rule 116 Sec 1(b) requiring the accused to appear at the arraignment.

5 G.R. No. L December 24, 1968 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, as Presiding Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch); MARIO HENSON y DE GUZMAN; RAFAEL GONZALES y SINCHONGCO; ANGEL MENDOZA y MARQUEZ; ROGELIO LAZARO y MAURICIO, and BIENVENIDO WIJANGCO CAPISTRANO, J.: Private respondents were accused for committing murder. It was agreed by both parties to be considered in the course of a regular trial instead of a summary proceeding. On trial, the prosecution presented their witnesses and the respondent Judge decided granting the accused of their right to bail despite the former s objection that it still had material witnesses to present. ISSUE: Does the prosecution have the right to present further evidence in regarding a motion for bail in the course of a regular trial? HELD: Whether the motion for bail is heard in the form of a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution has an equal right to be given an opportunity to present its evidence. The court's discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be exercised in the light of a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution; otherwise, it would be uncontrolled and might be capricious or whimsical. The decision must contain a summary of the evidence presented.

6 A.M. No. RTJ September 10, 1997 FLAVIANO B. CORTES, vs. JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Aparri, Cagayan ROMERO, J.: A complaint was filed with respondent Judge charging him guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law for a reason, among others when he decided several cases, of erroneously granting bail to the accused in a murder case entitled People vs. Ahmed Duerme. The respondent Judge alleged that he acted with the recommendation of the provincial prosecutor regarding the amount of the bailbond and granted the petition because the prosecution did not proved that the evidence of guilt is strong as there were no witnesses present that could testify to it. Nonetheless, the records show no conduct of a hearing for the petition for bail; there was no summary of evidence present; and in fact, the accused was not even presented because he was at large and yet to be arrested. ISSUE: W/N the grant of bail was valid even though the accused was not yet arrested. HELD: The right to bail can only be availed by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty. In this case, the judgment had a procedural lapse because of the fixation of the amount of bail when the accused was yet to be arrested. It would be premature to file a petition for bail when the freedom of the accused has yet to be curtailed.

7 G.R. No. L-278 July 18, 1946 HAYDEE HERRAS TEEHANKEE, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, and LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, POMPEYO DIAZ, ANTONIO QUIRINO and JOSE P. VELUZ, Judges of People's Court HILADO, J.: Petitioner was detained for having been allegedly collaborating with the enemy forces during the Japanese occupation. However, no information was filed against her so she sought to be temporarily released under a verbal petition for bail. The Special Prosecutors recommended that the bail should be at Php 50, 000 but one of the respondent-judge denied the bail for the reason that the recommended bailbond is not at par with the gravity of the offense. Petitioner sought to set aside the decision which was granted by the SC. The SC ordered the People s Court to decide on the application. At the hearing, the second respondent- Judge asked the prosecution with questions allegedly tending to compel disclosure of evidence. The petitioner s counsel objected for the reason that the court s duty is only to grant the verbal petition for bail; however, the Judge reserved its decision. It was again elevated to the SC and the same scenario happened but this time, the special prosecutor was held in contempt for nondisclosure of evidence. The application for bail was left undecided. ISSUE: W/N the petitioner should be granted bail even if no information was filed against her. HELD: It is not necessary for a detained person to wait for a formal complaint or information to be filed against him before he can claim his right for bail. From the moment he is placed under arrest, detained or restraint, he can claim the guarantee of the Bill of Rights. There is no legal or just basis to deny such benefit to one against whom the proper authorities may yet to conclude that there exists no sufficient evidence of guilt. The constitutional provision includes persons merely arrested with still no information against them as persons before conviction one who has not been convicted.

8 G.R. No September 24, 2002 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, vs. HON. GUILLERMO PURGANAN, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila and MARC JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARCIO BATACAN CRESPO PANGANIBAN, J.: When the temporary restraining order against the extradition for Mark Jimenez was lifted, the US Govt., represented by the Philippine DOJ filed for the extradition of the former because of, among other information, his alleged membership in a conspiracy to defraud the USA. Jimenez sought to be tried in the Philippine courts and prayed to be allowed to post bail in the amount of Php 100, 000 in case a warrant of arrest shall be issued against him. The trial court through the respondent-judge directed that a warrant of arrest be issued and the bail be fixed at Php 1mil in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty. ISSUE: W/N an accused in a pending extradition proceeding can be entitled the right to bail? HELD: Persons in a pending extradition proceeding cannot be entitled the right to bail because of the following reasons: 1) Extradition is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer of a fugitive from one state to the other. It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law; 2) The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused as an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each other s legal system and judicial process. Hence, there will be no violation of Due Process; 3) Extradition Proceedings Are Sui Generis which does not primarily consider the constitutional rights of the accused unlike criminal proceedings. The process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused and does not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. Presumption of innocence is not an issue in this kinds of cases. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extradite; 4) Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith as the Extradition Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest under the principle of pacta sunt servanda; and lastly, 5) There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight presumed against an extraditee. Furthermore, bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases, however, he may apply for bail and can be granted an exception only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. The applicant then bears the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and emphatic forcefulness. Being an elective position does not result in a substantial distinction against ordinary persons; contentions of delay due to lengthy proceedings of extradition cases are merely anticipatory and academic at this point; and lastly, mere claims of non-flight after having knowledge of an extradition request does not precisely justify that an extraditee is not a flight-risk.