ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G. R. No. 129604.September 4, 2001]

PEOPLE vs. CA JOVEN DE GRANO et al.

EN BANC

Gentleman :

Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated SEPT 4 2001.

G.R. No. 129604(The People of the Philippines vs. court of Appeals, Joven de Grano, Armando de Grano and Estanislao Lacaba.)

For resolution is private respondents' motion for reconsideration of the resolution, dated July 12, 1999 of the First Division of this Court, setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Manila, granting bail to private respondents as accused in Criminal Case No. 93-129988.

In 1991, private respondents Joven de Grano, Armando de Grano, and Estanislao Lacaba, together with Leonides Landicho, Domingo Landicho, and Leonardo Genil, who were at large, were charged with murder (qualified by treachery and evident premeditation) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tanauan, Batangas for the killing of one Emmanuel Mendoza. Upon the petition of the prosecution (herein petitioner, the venue of the trial was subsequently transferred to the RTC of Manila.

While the case was still in the RTC of Batangas and after they had pleaded not guilty to the charge, private respondents moved to be admitted to bail. Ruling on the motion was deferred pending resolution by this Court of the petition for change of venue. On December 12, 1995, the RTC, Branch 11, of Manila, presided over by Judge Roberto A. Barrios, granted private respondents' motion after finding that the prosecution evidence to prove treachery and evident premeditation was not strong. The trial court denied reconsideration of its order. At this point, the prosecution had already rested its case and the defense had presented four of its witnesses. The case was subsequently transferred to Branch 27 of the same court.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which, in a decision dated May 8, 1997, dismissed the petition and in effect sustained the grant of bail to private respondents. Hence the petition for certiorari filed in this Court by the prosecution. In its resolution dated July 12, 1999, the First Division of this Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, and ordered the re-arrest of private respondents. As a result, respondent Lacaba was re-arrested, but the other respondents, Joven de Grano and Armando de Grano, have not been re-arrested.

On August 4, 1999, private respondents filed this motion for reconsideration. The case was subsequently re-raffled on December 14, 1999 to the Second Division, apparently because a member of the First Division (Justice Y�ares-Santiago) was the ponente of the subject decision in the Court of Appeals and is thus disqualified from taking part in the proceedings in this case. The Second Division referred the case to the Court en banc in view of the fact that the motion for reconsideration concerned a decision of a Division of the Court.

It appears that, in the meantime, the trial of the case in the RTC continued, and upon the filing of memoranda by the prosecution and the defense on October 30, 2000 and September 29, 2000, respectively, the case was submitted for decision. However, in view of the transmittal of the records of the case to this Court on March 30, 2001, in connection with this petition, the trial court deferred the rendition of its decision.

The issue in this petition is whether the evidence of the prosecution showing the alleged treachery and evident premeditation (which would qualify the killing to murder) is strong so as to deny private respondents the right to bail under Rule 114, ��3-4 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, in relation to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, before it was amended by R.A. No. 7659. The resolution of this issue is thus so related to the determination of the guilt of the private respondents that any ruling which this Court might render in this case will, at this late stage, likely affect the decision on the merits by the trial court. In view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to REMAND the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila for further proceedings, including the rendition of its decision on the merits, with reasonable dispatch.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.)FELIPA B. ANAMA

Acting Assistant Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE