ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 : GLICERIO MANGOMA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 : ROMEO G. JALOSJOS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 : ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 : MERLE A. ALONZO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 : R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 : CONCERNED CITIZENS vs. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 : EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 : AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 : ARMANDO GEAGONIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 : CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 : FERNANDO FAROLAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 : JOSE M. BULAONG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 : NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 : February 13, 1995 : EMERITO M. AGCAOILI vs. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 : AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 : OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 : VICTOR ELIPE vs. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 : SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 : ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 : PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. vs. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 : EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 : DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. vs. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 : ALFREDO BITALAC vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 : POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 : COCOFED, ET AL. vs. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 : PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 : LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995

    IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 : TEOTIMO GIL vs. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 : APOLINARIO MUÑEZ vs. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 : PLDT COMPANY vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 : PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 : DENNIS DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 : ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. vs. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 : LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 : SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 : ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. vs. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 : MIGUEL A. ARVISU vs. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 : SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV'T. CENTER vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 : ILUMINADO ILUMIN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 : ALDORA LARKINS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 : HATIMA C. YASIN vs. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 : LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 : JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 : CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 : EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. vs. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 : FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 : ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. vs. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 : SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 : ALVIN TUASON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 - GLICERIO MANGOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 - ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 - ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 - MERLE A. ALONZO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 - R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 - CONCERNED CITIZENS v. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 - EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 - AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 - ARMANDO GEAGONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 - CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 - FERNANDO FAROLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 - JOSE M. BULAONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 - NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 February 13, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 - AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 - VICTOR ELIPE v. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 - SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 - ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 - PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. v. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 - EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 - ALFREDO BITALAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 - POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 - COCOFED, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 - PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 - LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 - IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 - TEOTIMO GIL v. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 - APOLINARIO MUÑEZ v. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 - PLDT COMPANY v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 - PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 - DENNIS DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 - ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 - LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 - SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 - ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. v. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 - MIGUEL A. ARVISU v. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 - SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV’T. CENTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 - ILUMINADO ILUMIN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 - ALDORA LARKINS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 - HATIMA C. YASIN v. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 - LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 - JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 - CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 - EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 - ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. v. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 - SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 - ALVIN TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183   February 6, 1995 - CONCERNED CITIZENS v. ARMIE E. ELMA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183. February 6, 1995.]

    CONCERNED CITIZENS, Complainants, v. JUDGE ARMIE E. ELMA, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BAIL; RULE AND EXCEPTION. — The Constitution guarantees to every person under legal custody the right to bail, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.

    2. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL, RULE ON APPLICATION THEREOF; NOT OBSERVED IN CASE AT BAR. — The Rules likewise mandate that before ruling on an application for bail, a hearing should first be conducted to determine the existence of a strong evidence against the accused. Respondent judge, in granting bail to accused Gatus in Criminal Case No. 94126, disregarded this basic rule of procedure. It is a rule of long standing that bail is not a matter of right in cases involving capital offenses or where the offense for which the accused stands charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. It is true that the weight of the evidence adduced is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. However, such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of determining whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty. At the hearing, the court should assure that the prosecution is afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to the factual issue, with the applicant having the right of cross-examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. In the case at bench, however, no formal hearing was conducted by respondent judge. He could not have assessed the weight of the evidence against accused Gatus before granting the latter’s application for bail.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONTENTS OF THE COURT’S ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING THEREOF; RULE; NOT SATISFIED IN CASE AT BAR. — The necessity of hearing an application for bail has been stressed by this Court in the early case of People v. San Diego, (No. L-29676, December 24, 1968, 26 SCRA 522) thus: "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. Hence, the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. . . ." In granting accused Gatus’ application for bail in Criminal Case No. 94126, respondent judge issued on September 2, 1992 on Order. On the face in case at Bar, it is at once apparent that respondent judge did not make any finding that the evidence against the accused was not strong to justify his grant of bail. Respondent judge merely adverts to "particular circumstances" of the case without in any way hinting their nature and character. Such an inscrutable statement does not satisfy the Constitution and the Rules. In his Comment, respondent judge claims that his Order, dated August 26, 1992, requiring the prosecution to file its Comment/Opposition to the motion for bail, substantially complied with the provision of the Rules requiring a formal hearing. He insists that said Order amounts to a summary hearing and complies with the Rules.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE THEREOF. — The stance of respondent judge magnifies his ignorance of the law. Summary hearing is "such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is to determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail." In receiving evidence on bail, it is true that the court is not required to try the merits of the case nor is it called to speculate on the outcome of the trial. Nonetheless, hearing of the application cannot be totally dispensed with. To do away with the hearing is to dispense with this time-tested safeguard against arbitrariness. The importance of the Rule requiring the conduct of a hearing in an application for bail cannot be overemphasized. On its result depends the right of an accused to provisional liberty as opposed to the duty of the State to protect its people against dangerous elements. The resolution of the issue affects important norms in our society, liberty on one hand, and order on the other. To minimize, if not eliminate, error and arbitrariness in a judge’s decision, the Rules require the judge to hear the parties and then make an intelligent assessment of their evidence.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    This administrative case arose from an anonymous letter-complaint, dated May 25, 1993, 1 charging Judge Armie E. Elma, presiding judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 153, with the Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion for granting bail in a non-bailable offense. The complaint was addressed to Vice-President Joseph Estrada as Chairman of the Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) who endorsed the complaint to the Ombudsman 2 for investigation. In turn, the Ombudsman referred the case to this Court for appropriate action.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The records disclose that one Alfredo Gatus y Tiamzon was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in five (5) separate Information, 3 before the sala of respondent Judge Elma. In the Information for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, dated August 14, 1992, no bail bond was recommended. 4

    On August 26, 1992, Accused Gatus filed a motion 5 to fix his bail in Criminal Case No. 94126 (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale) at P60,000.00. 6

    On the same date, respondent judge, instead of setting the application for hearing, directed the prosecution to file its Comment or Opposition to accused’s Motion to Fix Bail within five (5) days from notice. 7

    On August 31, 1992, the prosecution submitted its Comment, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That based on the record of this case, it appears that a preliminary investigation was conducted;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "2. That the . . . investigating prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation (did not) recommend (any) bail for said offense;

    "3. That undersigned still maintains the findings of the investigating Prosecutor. However, considering that the case is now within the Honorable Court, we submit the instant Petition for (sic) its sound discretion." 8

    In an Order dated September 2, 1992, respondent judge set the accused’s bail at P100,000.00. 9 On October 9, 1992, respondent judge approved the P100,000.00 bail posted by the accused. 10

    Considering the complaint, the Court required respondent judge to file his Comment. 11 In his Comment, 12 respondent judge admits that he failed to conduct a formal hearing prior to his grant of accused Gatus’ application for bail in Criminal Case No. 94126. He, however, maintains that in ordering the prosecution to comment on accused’s motion to fix bail, he has substantially complied with the requirement of a formal hearing. He further claims that he required the prosecution to adduce evidence but the latter refused and left the determination of the motion to his discretion.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The Constitution guarantees to every person under legal custody the right to bail, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. 13

    The Rules likewise mandates that before ruling on an application for bail, a hearing should first be conducted to determine the existence of a strong evidence against the accused. 14

    Respondent judge, in granting bail to accused Gatus in Criminal Case No. 94126, disregarded this basic rule of procedure. It is a rule of long standing that bail is not a matter of right in cases involving capital offenses or where the offense for which the accused stands charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. It is true that the weight of the evidence adduced is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. However, such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty. 15 At the hearing, the court should assure that the prosecution is afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to the factual issue, with the applicant having the right of cross-examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. 16 In the case at bench, however, no formal hearing was conducted by respondent judge. He could not have assessed the weight of the evidence against accused Gatus before granting the latter’s application for bail.

    The necessity of hearing an application for bail has been stressed by this court in the early case of People v. San Diego, 17 thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "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. Hence, the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In granting accused Gatus’ application for bail in Criminal Case No. 94126, respondent judge issued on September 2, 1992 an Order, worded as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "Acting on accused’s motion to fix bail which can be treated as a petition to bail, and considering the particular circumstances of this case, bail is hereby set at P100,000.00 to be put up by sufficient sureties.

    "SO ORDERED." 18

    The Order speaks eloquently for itself. On its face, it is once apparent that respondent judge did not make any finding that the evidence against the accused was not strong to justify his grant of bail. Respondent judge merely adverts to "particular circumstances" of the case without in any way hinting their nature and character. Such an inscrutable statement does not satisfy the Constitution and the Rules.

    In his Comment, respondent judge claims that his Order, dated August 26, 1992, requiring the prosecution to file its Comment/Opposition to the motion for bail, substantially complied with the provisions of the Rules requiring a formal hearing. He insists that said Order amounts to a summary hearing and complies with the Rules.

    The stance of respondent judge magnifies his ignorance of the law. Summary hearing is "such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is to determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail." 19 In receiving evidence on bail, it is true that the court is not required to try the merits of the case nor is it called to speculate on the outcome of the trial. 20 Nonetheless, hearing of the application cannot be totally dispensed with. To do away with the hearing is to dispense with this time-tested safeguard against arbitrariness.

    The importance of the Rule requiring the conduct of a hearing in an application for bail cannot be overemphasized. On its result depends the right of an accused to provisional liberty as opposed to the duty of the State to protect its people against dangerous elements. The resolution of the issue affects important norms in our society, liberty on one hand, and order on the other. To minimize, if not eliminate, error and arbitrariness in a judge’s decision, the Rules require the judge to hear the parties and then make an intelligent assessment of their evidence.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    This is not the first time respondent judge violated the rule on bail in capital offenses. He has been previously fined for a similar offense. On February 11, 1993, in A.M. No. 92-10-889 RTC, respondent judge also granted an accused a P100,000.00 bail in a non-bailable murder case. He granted the bail without affording the prosecution an opportunity to show it had a strong evidence against the accused. He was fined P10,000.00. On a motion for reconsideration, his fine was reduced to P5,000.00. He was, however, sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

    It thus appears that in two (2) capital cases, respondent has run roughshod on the right of the prosecution to oppose bail of persons accused of capital offenses, a right rooted on the necessity to protect the safety of the people. Respondent judge’s attitude is lamentable for it contributes to the deterioration of the peace of our community and shows callousness to the cry of our people for a more ordered liberty. As respondent judge has chosen to be stubborn in his ignorance of our rules, he has forfeited his privilege to wield the gavel of justice.

    WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Armie E. Elma, presiding judge, Branch 153, Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, is hereby found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. Respondent judge is hereby DISMISSED from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This Resolution is immediately executory.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

    Feliciano and Mendoza, JJ., took no part.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 8-9.

    2. Docketed as OMB-0-93-1940.

    3. Rollo, pp. 51-60.

    4. Under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00.

    5. Rollo, p. 13.

    6. Likewise, in connection with his four (4) estafa cases (docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 94127-30), Accused filed a motion to reduce bail from a total of P68,000.00 to P40,000.00. Respondent judge granted the motion on the same day; Rollo, pp. 42-43.

    7. Order dated August 26, 1992, Rollo, p. 14.

    8. id., p. 17.

    9. id., p. 18.

    10. id., p. 19.

    11. id., p. 8.

    12. id., pp. 76-80.

    13. Section 13, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

    14. Section 5, Rule 114, specifically provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sec. 5. Burden of proof in bail application. — At the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed by any person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify.

    15. Tahil v. Eisma, Adm. Matter No. 276-MJ, June 27, 1975, SCRA 378.

    16. Ocampo v. Bernabe, No. L-439, August 20, 1946, 77 Phil. 55.

    17. No. L-29676, December 24, 1968, 26 SCRA 522.

    18. Rollo, p. 47.

    19. Ocampo v. Bernabe, supra, citing Herras Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756.

    20. 8 C.J.S. 93, at p. 94.

    Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183   February 6, 1995 - CONCERNED CITIZENS v. ARMIE E. ELMA


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED