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
 

   
June-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 87775 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FEDERICO DADO

  • G.R. Nos. 97162-64 June 1, 1995 : ALFREDO L. OANIA, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101309 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FELICIANO STA. AGATA

  • G.R. No. 106283 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD VALLENA

  • G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995 : LETICIA LIGON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-894 MTJ June 2, 1995 : FELIXBERTO N. BOQUIREN vs. EMPERATRIZ DEL ROSARIO-CRUZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1057 June 2, 1995 : CRISPO B. BORJA, SR. vs. ROQUE ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 74240 June 2, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DAVID B. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. 75723 June 2, 1995 : SIMEON FLORO vs. ORLANDO A. LLENADO

  • G.R. No. 100921 June 2, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALBERTO B. SOMOOC

  • G.R. No. 102253 June 2, 1995 : SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107225 June 2, 1995 : ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111484 June 2, 1995 : MARIANO R. DE LUNA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112844 June 2, 1995 : PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113843 June 2, 1995 : LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO vs. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 114787 June 2, 1995 : MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1150 June 5, 1995 : JULIO V. CUI, ET AL. vs. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 102522 June 5, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JUDRITO B. ADAYA

  • G.R. No. 115829 June 5, 1995 : MARIANO T. NASSER vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995 : RAUL SESBREÑO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91890 June 9, 1995 : PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1142 June 16, 1995 : OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MANUEL B. GADON, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217 June 16, 1995 : RODRIGO SANTOS vs. CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. Nos. 73257-58 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICARDO CAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97285 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CRESENTE PIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102719 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RONNIE QUINONES

  • G.R. No. 104662 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LEONARDO M. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 107362 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. BERNARD SIA

  • G.R. No. 112313 June 16, 1995 : BIENVENIDO S. EVANGELISTA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114138 June 16, 1995 : PONCIANO LAYUG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111810-11 June 16, 1995 : JAMES YU, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85723 June 19, 1995 : BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96107 June 19, 1995 : CORAZON JALBUENA DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98395 June 19, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99858 June 19, 1995 : PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. vs. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104687-88 June 19, 1995 : PONCIANO CORTEZ, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107979 June 19, 1995 : DANILO F. GATCHALIAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111342 June 19, 1995 : PORFIRIO BALLADARES, JR., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1035 June 21, 1995 : EMETERIO GALLO vs. JOSE CORDERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-799 June 21, 1995 : NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY vs. JUVY N. COSCA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1119 June 21, 1995 : ROSALIND M. APAGA vs. PHOEBE P. PONCE

  • G.R. No. 57023 June 22, 1995 : RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. vs. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995 : JAMES L. CHIONGBIAN, ET AL. vs. OSCAR M. ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995 : SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENATO CANTURIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-884 June 23, 1995 : JULIUS N. RABOCA vs. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-89-384 June 23, 1995 : PEDRO SAN JOSE vs. BENJAMIN CENTENO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1317 June 27, 1995 : DALMACIO CELINO vs. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 101107-08 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROMEO B. BARROS

  • G.R. No. 106082 June 27, 1995 : LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108662 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FERNANDO N. HALILI

  • G.R. No. 111105 June 27, 1995 : ROLANDO REVIDAD, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 : LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA vs. JOSE BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112850 June 27, 1995 : GREENHILLS AIRCON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113690 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VICENTE VITOR

  • G.R. No. 115656 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NILO B. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1056 June 29, 1995 : ALFONSO L. VELASCO vs. MA. LOURDES C. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 87187 June 29, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. PAULINO O. RIVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 112070-71 June 29, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. SIXTO VIÑAS, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995 : BACALTOS COAL MINES, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117186 June 29, 1995 : ALLAN M. LOYOLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104234 June 30, 1995 : AIR FRANCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107623 June 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ANGELITO P. MANALO

  • G.R. No. 110889 June 30, 1995 : JOY L. BOMBASE vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87775 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO DADO

  • G.R. Nos. 97162-64 June 1, 1995 - ALFREDO L. OANIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101309 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO STA. AGATA

  • G.R. No. 106283 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VALLENA

  • G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995 - LETICIA LIGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-894 MTJ June 2, 1995 - FELIXBERTO N. BOQUIREN v. EMPERATRIZ DEL ROSARIO-CRUZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1057 June 2, 1995 - CRISPO B. BORJA, SR. v. ROQUE ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 74240 June 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID B. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. 75723 June 2, 1995 - SIMEON FLORO v. ORLANDO A. LLENADO

  • G.R. No. 100921 June 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO B. SOMOOC

  • G.R. No. 102253 June 2, 1995 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107225 June 2, 1995 - ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111484 June 2, 1995 - MARIANO R. DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112844 June 2, 1995 - PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113843 June 2, 1995 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 114787 June 2, 1995 - MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1150 June 5, 1995 - JULIO V. CUI, ET AL. v. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 102522 June 5, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDRITO B. ADAYA

  • G.R. No. 115829 June 5, 1995 - MARIANO T. NASSER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995 - RAUL SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91890 June 9, 1995 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1142 June 16, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MANUEL B. GADON, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217 June 16, 1995 - RODRIGO SANTOS v. CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. Nos. 73257-58 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97285 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENTE PIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102719 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE QUINONES

  • G.R. No. 104662 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO M. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 107362 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARD SIA

  • G.R. No. 112313 June 16, 1995 - BIENVENIDO S. EVANGELISTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114138 June 16, 1995 - PONCIANO LAYUG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111810-11 June 16, 1995 - JAMES YU, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85723 June 19, 1995 - BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96107 June 19, 1995 - CORAZON JALBUENA DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98395 June 19, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99858 June 19, 1995 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104687-88 June 19, 1995 - PONCIANO CORTEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107979 June 19, 1995 - DANILO F. GATCHALIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111342 June 19, 1995 - PORFIRIO BALLADARES, JR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1035 June 21, 1995 - EMETERIO GALLO v. JOSE CORDERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-799 June 21, 1995 - NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY v. JUVY N. COSCA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1119 June 21, 1995 - ROSALIND M. APAGA v. PHOEBE P. PONCE

  • G.R. No. 57023 June 22, 1995 - RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995 - JAMES L. CHIONGBIAN, ET AL. v. OSCAR M. ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995 - SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO CANTURIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-884 June 23, 1995 - JULIUS N. RABOCA v. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-89-384 June 23, 1995 - PEDRO SAN JOSE v. BENJAMIN CENTENO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1317 June 27, 1995 - DALMACIO CELINO v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 101107-08 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. BARROS

  • G.R. No. 106082 June 27, 1995 - LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108662 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO N. HALILI

  • G.R. No. 111105 June 27, 1995 - ROLANDO REVIDAD, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 - LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA v. JOSE BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112850 June 27, 1995 - GREENHILLS AIRCON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113690 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VITOR

  • G.R. No. 115656 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO B. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1056 June 29, 1995 - ALFONSO L. VELASCO v. MA. LOURDES C. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 87187 June 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO O. RIVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 112070-71 June 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO VIÑAS, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995 - BACALTOS COAL MINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117186 June 29, 1995 - ALLAN M. LOYOLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104234 June 30, 1995 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107623 June 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO P. MANALO

  • G.R. No. 110889 June 30, 1995 - JOY L. BOMBASE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217   June 16, 1995 - RODRIGO SANTOS v. CARLOS C. OFILADA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217. June 16, 1995.]

    RODRIGO SANTOS, Complainant, v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL; GENERALLY, ALL PERSONS IN CUSTODY SHALL BEFORE FINAL CONVICTION BE ENTITLED THERETO AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; EXCEPTION. — The general rule is that all persons in custody shall, before final conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right. The exception thereto is when the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense which, under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong, which has since been ramified to include the penalties of life imprisonment and death.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; BECOMES A MATTER OF DISCRETION IF ACCUSED IS CHARGED WITH CAPITAL OFFENSE; PROCEDURE; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — The grant of bail becomes a matter of discretion if the accused is charged with a capital offense. Where admission to bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing is mandatory before an accused can be granted bail. At the hearing, both the prosecution and the defense must be given reasonable opportunity to prove, in the case of the prosecution, that evidence of guilt of the applicant is strong; and, in the case of the defense, that such evidence of guilt is not strong. In the case involved herein, the accused was charged with murder, a capital offense, in Criminal Case No. 1433-M94. Hence, it is specifically required that the prosecution must be accorded ample opportunity to prove that the evidence of his guilt is strong. It appears from the records that respondent judge granted bail to the accused without any hearing, thereby denying the prosecution a chance to prevent said grant of bail by adducing evidence showing the strength of the evidence of his guilt.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE EXERCISE THEREOF. — We have held that admission to bail as a matter of discretion presupposes the exercise thereof in accordance with law and guided by the applicable legal principles. The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation or the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any order issued in the absence thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim, caprice and outright arbitrariness.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; A GROUND FOR NULLIFICATION THEREOF. — While the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, this discretion, by the nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at such hearing. Whether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must always be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court may resolve the motion for bail. If the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground.

    5. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT OF SUBMISSION OF SUMMARY OR RESUME OF EVIDENCE; NOT COMPLIED WITH IN CASE AT BAR. — It is apparent from a reading of the impugned order granting bail that it lacked the requisite summary or resume of the evidence presented by the parties and necessary to support the grant of bail. There is no recital therein of any evidence presented by the prosecution, much less a conclusion or a pronouncement therefrom that the guilt of the accused is not evident. We have repeatedly stressed that the order granting or refusing the bail must contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The reason therefor is obvious. On the basis thereof, the judge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, in order to determine whether bail should be granted or withheld.

    6. ID.; ID.; ID.; HEARING REQUIREMENT FOR GRANTING THEREOF; NOT COMPLIED WITH IN CASE AT BAR. — Respondent judge tried to justify the grant of bail without a hearing by stating that the matter of the need for such a hearing before the reduction or grant of bail was determined by the judge of the municipal trial court who predetermined the bail issue and granted the same prior to the filing of the information in the regional trial court. The said justification is effete and unacceptable. The fact that the judge of the municipal trial court granted bail to the accused during the preliminary investigation cannot be the basis for the grant of bail by the regional trial court after an information was already filed and where the investigating public prosecutor recommends no bail for the indictee. The bail was granted by said judge of the lower court on the bases of the evidence then at hand at that stage. It could very well happen that thereafter the prosecution may have secured further evidence, in addition to or in connection with that which it already possessed, which evidence taken all together are sufficiently strong to prove the guilt of the accused of a capital offense. Thus, it is still necessary for the judge of the regional trial court, in whose sala the information is filed, to set the petition for bail for hearing in order that the parties can feasibly introduce whatever additional evidence they may be minded to adduce therein as an aid in determining the guilt of the accused and the proper amount of the bail.

    7. ID.; ID.; ID.; DUTY OF THE COURT IF PROSECUTION REFUSES TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE OR FAILS TO INTERPOSE OBJECTION THERETO. — Even the alleged failure of the prosecution to interpose an objection to the granting of bail to the accused will not justify such grant without hearing. This Court has uniformly ruled that even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose any objection to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching and clarificatory questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it, against the accused. Where the prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such questions as would ascertain the strength of the State’s evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount of bail. Irrespective of respondent judge’s opinion that the evidence of guilt against the accused is not strong, the law and settled jurisprudence demand that a hearing be conducted before bail may be fixed for the temporary release of the accused, if bail is at all justified. Thus, although the provincial prosecutor had interposed no objection to the grant of bail to the accused, the respondent judge therein should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from the prosecution whether the latter was not in fact contesting the bail application. In addition, a hearing, was also necessary for the court to take into consideration the guidelines set forth in the then Section 6, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure for fixing the amount of bail. Only after respondent judge had satisfied himself that these requirements have been met, could he then proceed to rule on whether or not to grant bail.

    8. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; GRANTING OF BAIL WITHOUT PRIOR HEARING; WARRANTS DISCIPLINARY ACTION. — Respondent’s act in granting bail to the accused under the aforementioned circumstances obtaining in this administrative matter amounts to such a whimsical and arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction which calls for the exercise of the disciplinary power of this court.


    D E C I S I O N


    REGALADO, J.:


    The present administrative matter was commenced by a sworn complaint dated June 22, 1994 filed by Rodrigo Santos, through counsel, before the Office of the Court Administrator charging Judge Carlos C. Ofilada with incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, oppression and grave misconduct relative to Criminal Cases Nos. 1433-M-94 for murder and 1434-M-94 for illegal possession of firearm.

    The records reveal that for the killing of complainant’s son, Ronnie Santos, two separate informations for murder and for illegal possession of firearms, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 1433-M-94 and 1434-M-94, respectively, 1 were filed against accused Rolando Lopez before Branch 15, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, presided over by respondent Judge.

    Subsequently, the corresponding warrants of arrest were issued by respondent judge in Criminal Case No. 1433-M-94 where no bail was recommended by the public prosecutor, and in Criminal Case No. 1434-M-94 where bail of P200,000.00 was recommended. 2 Thereafter, counsel for the accused filed a "Motion To Reinstate Former Bail and Reduction of the Amount of New Bail Bond."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In an order dated May, 1994, respondent judge granted said motion, fixing the bail bond in criminal Case No. 1433-M-94 at P40,000.00 and reducing the recommended P20,000.00 bail in Criminal Case No. 1434-M-94 to P40,000.00. 3

    Subsequently , the present administrative complaint was filed, assailing the said order of respondent judge on the contention that the grant of said motion without hearing or notice to the provincial prosecutor constitutes a clear violation of the Rules of Court. Complainant further alleged that respondent judge manifested unusual interest in the case by rudely and arrogantly ordering the deletion of the names of the prosecution’s witnesses when there was no appearance for the prosecution during the arraignment of the accused, which is a clear indication of his unfairness; and that the "Motion for Reconsideration and Disqualification" of respondent judge filed by the provincial prosecutor was denied by the former by merely writing on the face thereof the notation "denied" without the corresponding written order. 4

    In our resolution of August 22, 1994, respondent judge was required to comment on the aforesaid administrative complaint. 5

    On September 12, 1994, complainant, through counsel, filed an "Urgent Motion to Order Re-raffle of Cases," praying that Criminal Cases Nos. 1433-M-94 and 1434-M-94 be re-raffled to another branch of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos in the interest of justice, considering that respondent judge refused to voluntarily inhibit himself from trying said cases. 6 In the resolution of this Court dated September 26, 1994, said motion was merely noted, pending filing of the comment of respondent judge on the administrative complaint. 7

    In his comment which was thereafter received, judge Ofilada vehemently denied the allegations in the complaint. According to him, the amount of bail recommended by prosecutors is almost always not followed. He claims that one who believes that the court should follow the recommendation regarding the amount of bail like a strait-jacket is misinformed. He further averred that the matter of hearing before the grant or reduction of bail was handled by the Municipal Trial Court of San Miguel, Bulacan, which made a predetermination of the amount of the bail.

    With respect to the information for illegal possession of firearm, he asserted that the revelation of the investigator that the gun was not recovered weakened the prosecution’s case, hence reduction of bail was justified. Respondent judge further argued that the reduction of the amount bail is all right as long as the accused would diligently attend the trial of the cases until the promulgation of the judgments herein. The law, he added, even allows the posting of recognizance in favor of the accused in certain cases and under certain conditions. 8

    On November 16, 1994 the Court resolved to refer this administrative matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. 9 On February 12, 1992, Deputy court Administrator Reynaldo C. Suarez, submitted to the Court his memorandum duly approved by the Court Administrator. 10

    The general rule is that all persons in custody shall, before final conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right. The exception thereto is when the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense which, under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong, 11 which has since been ramified to include the penalties of life imprisonment and death.

    Thus, the grant of bail becomes a matter of discretion if the accused is charged with a capital offense. Where admission to bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing is mandatory before an accused can be granted bail. 12 At the hearing, both the prosecution and the defense must be given reasonable opportunity to prove, in the case of the prosecution, that the evidence of guilt of the applicant is strong; and, in the case of the defense, that such evidence of guilt is not strong. 13

    In the case involved herein, the accused was charged with murder, a capital offense, in Criminal Case No. 1433-M-94. Hence, it is specifically required that the prosecution must be accorded ample opportunity to prove that the evidence of his guilt is strong. It appears from the records that respondent judge granted bail to the accused without any hearing, thereby denying the prosecution a chance to prevent said grant of bail by adducing evidence showing the strength of the evidence of his guilt.

    We have held that admission to bail as a matter of discretion presupposes the exercise thereof in accordance with law and guided by the applicable legal principles. The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any order issued in the absence thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim, caprice and outright arbitrariness. 14

    Accordingly, while the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, this discretion, by the nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at such hearing. Whether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must always be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court may resolve the motion for bail. If the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. 15

    Moreover, it is apparent from a reading of the impugned order granting bail that it lacked the requisite summary or resume of the evidence presented by the parties and necessary to support the grant of bail. There is no recital therein of any evidence presented by the prosecution, much less a conclusion or a pronouncement therefrom that the guilt of the accused is not evident.

    We have repeatedly stressed that the order granting or refusing the bail must contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The reason therefor is obvious. On the basis thereof, the judge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, in order to determine whether bail should be granted or withheld. 16

    Respondent judge tried to justify the grant of bail without a hearing by stating that the matter of the need for such a hearing before the reduction or grant of bail was determined by the judge of the municipal trial court who predetermined the bail issue and granted the same prior to the filing of the information in the regional trial court. The said justification is effete and unacceptable.

    The fact that the judge of the municipal trial court granted bail to the accused during the preliminary investigation cannot be the basis for the grant of bail by the regional trial court after an information was already filed and where the investigating public prosecutor recommends no bail for the indictee.

    The bail was granted by said judge of the lower court on the bases of the evidence then at hand at that stage. It could very well happen that thereafter the prosecution may have secured further evidence, in addition to or in connection with that which it already possessed, which evidence taken all together are sufficiently strong to prove the guilt of the accused of a capital offense. Thus, it is still necessary for the judge of the regional trial court, in whose sala the information is filed, to set the petition for bail for hearing in order that the parties can feasibly introduce whatever additional evidence they may be minded to adduce therein as an aid in determining the guilt of the accused and the proper amount of the bail.

    Even the alleged failure of the prosecution to interpose an objection to the granting of bail to the accused will not justify such grant without hearing. This Court has uniformly ruled that even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose any objection to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching and clarificatory questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it, against the accused. Where the prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such questions as would ascertain the strength of the State’s evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount of bail. 17 Irrespective of respondent judge’s opinion that the evidence or guilt against the accused is not strong, the law and settled jurisprudence demand that a hearing be conducted before bail may be fixed for the temporary release of the accused, if bail is at all justified. 18

    Thus, although the provincial prosecutor had interposed no objection to the grant of bail to the accused, the respondent judge therein should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from the prosecution whether the latter was not in fact contesting the bail application. In addition, a hearing was also necessary for the court to take into consideration the guidelines set forth in the then Section 6, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure for fixing the amount of bail. Only after respondent judge had satisfied himself that these requirements have been met could he then proceed to rule on whether or not to grant bail. 19

    Clearly, therefore, respondent’s act in granting bail to the accused under the aforementioned circumstances obtaining in this administrative matter amounts to such a whimsical and arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction which calls for the exercise of the disciplinary power of this Court. It is indeed lamentable that despite the series of its pronouncements on the same administrative offense, this Court still has to contend with the same problem all over again and to impose once more the same sanction.

    The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that a fine of P20,000.00 be imposed on respondent judge and that he be warned against a repetition of the same administrative misconduct. We approve the recommendation since it is but in accordance with the penalty imposed by the Court in previous cases involving the same issues. 20

    ON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, respondent Judge Carlos C. Ofilada of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan is hereby ORDERED to pay a FINE of P20,000.00, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will definitely warrant a more severe sanction. Let a copy of this decision be attached to the personal record of respondent judge.

    Additionally, in the best interest of a fair trial and a just disposition of the criminal actions involved, it is hereby ORDERED that Criminal Cases Nos. 1433-M-94 and 1434-M-94, RE-RAFFLED among the other branches of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. The judge of judges to whom the cases shall thereafter be assigned shall forthwith cancel the present bail bonds of the accused Rolando Lopez in the aforesaid cases, promptly issue the corresponding warrants of arrest therein, and thereafter conduct the proper hearings with due notice to all parties concerned of such bail petitions as may be filed by said accused.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Quiason, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, 8-11.

    2. Ibid., 12-13.

    3. Ibid., 15.

    4. Ibid., 14.

    5. Ibid., 18.

    6. Ibid., 19-22.

    7. Ibid., 63.

    8. Ibid., 65-66.

    9. Ibid., 72.

    10. Ibid., 73-75.

    11. Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; ,Section 3, Rule 114, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

    12. Section 5, Rule 114, id.

    13. People v. San Diego, etc., et. al., L-29676, December 24, 1968, 26 SCRA 522; People v. Sola, Et Al., G.R. Nos. 56158-64, March 17, 1981, 103 SCRA 39; People v. Calo, Jr., Et Al., G.R. No. 88531, June 18, 1990, 186 SCRA 620; Carpio, Et. Al. v. Maglalang, etc., Et Al., G.R. No. 78162, April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 41; Pico v. Combong, Jr., etc., A.M. RTJ-91-764, November 6, 1992, 215 SCRA 421.

    14. Borinaga v. Tamin, etc., A.M. No. RTJ 93-936, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 206, citing People v. Nano, etc., Et Al., G.R. No. 94639, January 13, 1992, 205 SCRA 155.

    15. Borinaga v. Tamin, etc., supra, citing Ocampo v. Bernabe, Et Al., 77 Phil. 55 (1946) and People v. San Diego, etc., Et Al., ante.

    16. See Carpio, etc., Et. Al. v. Maglalang, etc., Et Al., supra; People v. Nano, etc., Et Al., supra; Borinaga v. Tamin, etc., supra; Aguirre, Et. Al. v. Belmonte, etc., A.M. No. RTJ-93-1052, October 27, 1994; Baylon, etc. v. Sison, etc., A.M. No. 92-7-360-0, April 6, 1995.

    17. Aguirre, Et. Al. v. Belmonte, etc., supra; Borinaga v. Tamin, etc., supra.

    18. Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991, 199 SCRA 48.

    19. Borinaga v. Tamin, etc., supra; Tucay v. Domagas, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1286, March 2, 1995.

    20. Libarios v. Dabalos, supra; Borinaga v. Tamin, etc., supra; Aguirre, Et Al., v. Belmonte, etc., supra; Tucay v. Domagas, supra; Baylon, etc. v. Sison, etc., supra.

    Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217   June 16, 1995 - RODRIGO SANTOS v. CARLOS C. OFILADA


    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