Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > October 1946 Decisions > G.R. No. L-608 October 7, 1946 - PROCOPIO BELTRAN v. POMPEYO DIAZ, ET AL.

077 Phil 493:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-608. October 7, 1946.]

PROCOPIO BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. POMPEYO DIAZ, JOSE P. VELUZ, and ANTONIO QUIRINO, Associate Judges of People’s Court, Fifth Division, and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, as Head of the Office of Special Prosecutors, Respondents.

Alidio, Lainez & Elegir, for petitioner

Solicitor General Tañada in his own behalf.

First Solicitor-General Alvendia, for respondent judges of the People’s Court.

SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS NOT AFFECTED BY DEATH DISQUALIFICATION, RESIGNATION OR ABSENCE OF A JUDGE PROVIDED THERE IS QUORUM. — The death, disqualification, resignation, or absence of a judge "will not deprive the surviving or remaining judges of authority to hold court and transact the business of the court . . . provided, however, the number of the court is not reduced below that legally required for the transaction of its business."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; PEOPLE’S COURT; QUORUM OF DIVISION FOR TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS; HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL. — Short of the presence of two judges, a division of the People’s Court has no authority to sit for the transaction of business; it has no power to hear a petition for the cancellation of bail.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BAIL; WHO ARE ENTITLED BEFORE CONVICTION; EXCEPTIONS. — All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF ON PROSECUTION AT HEARING FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL. — At the hearing of an application for the cancellation of bail in a capital offense, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WHETHER EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG OR NOT, A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION; NECESSITY OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE. — The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion. The exercise of this discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court the petitioner having the right of cross-examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVITS OF RECITAL OF CONTENTS. — Mere affidavits or recital of their contents are not sufficient since they are hearsay evidence, unless they are not objected to.

7. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL; CANCELLATION OF BAIL AND ARREST OF DEFENDANT, EFFECT OF; CASE AT BAR. — The order of the People’s Court cancelling petitioner’s bail had already produced its effects. The bail was cancelled and petitioner was arrested and placed in custody of the law. From the moment petitioner and placed in custody of the law. From the moment petitioner was arrested upon cancellation of his bail, his surety ceased to be his mancupator—his jailer, was deprived of control over and custody of petitioner, and was thus effectivity prevented from discharging its legal obligations (section 2, Rule 110, Rules of Court) under the undertaking. Consequently, the surety was discharged and the bail bond ceased to be in force. Sail bail bond is beyond recall. Reversal of the executed order of cancellation and arrest will not revive it. Held: That petitioner is entitled to be released upon the filing and approval by the People’s Court, of a new bail bond in the same amount as the original bond, that is, P20,000.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Certiorari to annul an order issued by the Fifth Division of the People’s Court cancelling the bail filed by petitioner for this provisional liberty and ordering the arrest of the latter.

Petitioner, a political detainee, was, on September 15, 1945, released on a bail of P20,000 granted by the Solicitor General, pursuant to the authority vested in the latter by the provisions of Executive Order No. 65 (41 Off. Gaz., 416).

On February 5, 1946, the Office of Social prosecutors filed in the People’s Court an indictment on twelve counts charging petitioner with the high crime of treason. Simultaneously, the Office of Special Prosecutors filed in the same court a petition for the cancellation of petition’s bail, planted upon the ground that the evidence of guilt then in their possession was strong.

The foregoing petition was heard on March 2 and 11, 1946, before the Honorable Jose P. Veluz, one of the Judges of the Fifth Division of the people’s Court. In the course of the hearing, the Special Prosecutor recited what he terms "a few of the summary of the evidence in the hands of the prosecution in support of the counts of treason alleged in the information against the accused," taken from the affidavits of witnesses. No further evidence was introduced by the prosecution. Counsel for petitioner object to the competency and sufficiency of the recital made by the Special Prosecutor. He invoked the right to cross-examination the witnesses for the prosecution. Counsel moved for a ruling on his objection, without prejudice to petitioner’s right to present evidence on his behalf. Judge Veluz overruled the objection upon the ground that the Special Prosecutor declined to reveal his evidence and had expressed his desire to present the witnesses for the prosecution only at the trial of the case. Petitioner then presented two witnesses, namely, Dalmacio Maniquis and Major Fernando Perello of the Philippine Army. The substance of their testimony is that the accused had knowledge of the guerrilla activities of these two witnesses and helped the latter. Said witnesses, however, had no knowledge of the charges against the petitioner.

Predicated upon the ground that the evidence which sustains the acts charged in the information against the accused is strong "according to the recital made on the record by the Special Prosecutor," and that said evidence was not rebutted or strengthened by the testimony of the witnesses presented by the defense, the respondent Judges, in an order dated March 14, 1946, ordered the cancellation of the bail and the arrest of petitioner.

A motion for reconsideration having been denied by the respondent Judges in an order dated April 13, 1946, petitioner brought the case before this court on certiorari. It is urged, first, that the respondent Judge Honorable Jose Veluz, sitting alone, was without authority to hear the petition for the cancellation of the bail; and secondly, that the respondent Judges of the People’s Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering of the bail without a showing, on the part of the prosecution, of competent and strong evidence of guilt.

1. The question as to the number of Judges required to be present in order to authorize the legal transaction of business by the People’s Court is to be determined from the law of its creation. The general rule is that the death, disqualification, resignation, or absence of a judge "will not deprive the surviving or remaining judges of authority to hold court and transact the business of the court . . . provided, however, the number of the court is not reduced below that legally required for the transaction of its business" (14 Am. Jur., 282, 283). By section 6 of the People’s Court Act, the said court may sit, in five divisions of three Judges each. Section 9 of the same Act provides that two Judges shall constitute a quorum "for the sessions in division," and added that: "In the absence of a quorum, the . . . division shall stand ipso facto adjourned until such time as the requisite number shall be present, and a memorandum to this effect shall be inserted by the clerk in the minutes of the court." In the absence of a quorum owing to the legal disqualification of a Judge, section 7 of the law directs that the President shall designate a District Judge of First Instance, Judge-at-Large of First Instance, Cadastral Judge, Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, Securities and Exchange Commissioner, or Public Service Commissioner "to sit and vote in lieu of the disqualified Judge, in connection with the case which brought about the disqualification. Section 12 enjoins the People’s Court to try and decide or otherwise dispose of its cases in the manner provided for in the Act and in existing law s not inconsistent therewith.

A circumspect and considerate examination of the foregoing provisions of the People’s Court Act discloses that Congress made it abundantly clear that in the absence of a quorum, a division of the People’s Court must suspend its sessions, and it shall stand ipso facto adjourned until such time as the requisite number shall be present. The statutory requirement of a quorum for the sessions in division is mandatory. The phraseology of the law is clear. There is no room for doubt. Short of the presence of two Judges, a division of the People’s Court has no authority To sit for the transaction of business; it has no power to hear a petition for the cancellation of bail. Consequently, the respondent judge Honorable Jose P. Veluz, sitting alone, was without authority to hear the application for the cancellation of petitioner’s bail.

Mere fact that the order directing the cancellation of the bail was subsequently signed by the three respondent Judges constituting the Fifth Division of the People’s Court, is of no moment. The mandatory requirement of a quorum in the People’s Court Act cannot be detoured by the simple expedient of permitting one of the Judges of a division to hold sessions and thereafter submit the case for the consideration of the members of that division. A man’s liberty is so precious as to be treated so lightly. In this particular case, petitioner received less than a fair hearing. For, under the law the was entitled to a resolution handed down at the hearing by at least two of the Judges of the Fifth Division, sitting in court, upon a question of substance, namely, his objection to the competency and sufficiency of the recital of the evidence made by the Special Prosecutor.

Upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so hold the proceedings had before the respondent Judge Honorable Jose P. Veluz on the matter of the petition for cancellation of the bail herein, are null and void.

2. Constitutional law has established the basic rule that all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong (section 1 [16], Article III of Constitution; Ocampo v. Bernabe, p. 55, ante). It is now well-settled that at the hearing of an application for the cancellation of bail in a capital offense, the burden of proof is on the prosecution (Marcos v. Cruz, 67 Phil., 82; Ocampo v. Bernabe, supra). And in Ocampo v. Bernabe, supra, this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is, as stated in the Herras Teehankee case, a matter of judicial discretion. This discretion, by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not exhibited or produced before the court (Ramos v. Ramos, 45 Phil., 362), it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross-examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. . . .

In the present case, the charge against petitioner is a capital offense, namely, treason. Therefore, for the petition to cancel his bail to prosper, the prosecution must present strong evidence of guilt. No evidence, however, was adduced by the Special Prosecutor at the hearing of the application to cancel the bail. It is true that the Special Prosecutor made a recital in the form of a summary of a portion of the evidence in the hands of the prosecution in support of the counts of treason against respondent, ’taken from the affidavits of witnesses. But this recital was objected to by the defense. And, as was correctly stated in Ocampo v. Bernabe, supra, the rule is that mere affidavits or recital of their contents are not sufficient since they are hearsay evidence, unless the petitioner fails to object." Really, if the rule were otherwise, a Special Prosecutor would be virtually clothed with the power of an arbiter on the question of determining whether or not a person accused of treason is entitled to bail. This would amount to an abdication of the court’s prerogatives. Such is not the law.

It appearing that no evidence was presented in support of the motion for the cancellation of the bail, the respondent Judges of the Fifth Division of the People’s Court committed an abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of petitioner’s bail and the arrest of the latter.

But the People’s Court order in question had heretofore produced its effects. It was executed. The bail in effect was cancelled, and petitioner was arrested and now is in the custody of the law. We are faced by a fait accompli. From the moment petition was arrested upon cancellation of his bail, his surety ceased to be his mancupator — his jailer, was deprived of control over and custody of petitioner, and was thus effectively prevented from discharging its legal obligations (section 2, Rule 110, Rules of Court) under the undertaking. Consequently, the surety was discharged and the bail bond ceased to be in force. Said bail bond is beyond recall. Reversal of the executed order of cancellation and arrest will not revive it. Our duty in the premises is plain. It is to restore petitioner to his status quo ante as far as is possible. Petitioner, accordingly, is entitled to be released upon the filing and approval by the People’s Court, of a new bail bond in the same amount as the original bond, that is, P20,000.

Wherefore, the order of the respondent Judges dated March 14, 1946, directing the cancellation of bail and the arrest of petitioner, and the order of the said Judges dated April 13, 1946, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside; and the People’s Court is hereby ordered to admit petitioner to a new bail in the sum of P20,000, without prejudice to the right of the Office of Special Prosecutors thereafter to petition the People’s Court for the cancellation of said bail, which petition shall be heard and decided in accordance with the opinion herein. Without costs.

Feria, Pablo, Hilado, JJ., De la Rosa, Santos, Angeles, Ramos and Benitez, Acting, JJ., concur.

Feria, J., I hereby certify that Acting Associate Justice Nicasio Yatco voted in accordance with this decision, but could not sign the same because of his being assigned in Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

Separate Opinions


PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We concur in the majority opinion in so far as it reiterates the principles and doctrines which we have enunciated in our dissenting or concurring opinions in Duran v. Abad Santos (42 Off. Gaz., 263, 1945), in Herras Teehankee v. Rovira (75 Phil., 634), in Tehankee v. Director of Prisons(76 Phil., 756), and in Occampo v. Bernabe (p. 55, ante).

We also fully agree with the pronouncement that the proceedings had before one of the respondent judges without the presence of at least another one, are null and void, being in violation of the People’s Court Act which provides that two judges shall constitute a quorum for the sessions in division of the People’s Court and that, in the absence of a quorum, the division shall stand ipso facto adjourned until such time as the requisite number shall be present.

But, as in De la Rama v. Misa, (42 Off. Gaz., 1544), in Ocampo v. Bernabe, supra, and lastly in De la Rama v. People’s Court (p.461, ante), we are compelled to dissent from the dispositive part of the majority opinion in the present case as being inconsistent with the legal principles and enunciated as premises in the body of the majority opinion.

We are of opinion that petitioner Procopio Beltran is entitled to immediate release, without the necessity of posting any new bond, as his bond in the amount of P20,000, posted on September 15, 1945, must be considered surviving and continued by the decision setting aside the order of respondent Judges dated March 14, 1946, ordering the cancellation of the bail and the arrest of the petitioner’s motion for e dated April 13, 1946 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The orders of March 14 and April 13, 1946, being null and void as having been issued in violation of law and with grave abuse of discretion, must be, for all legal purposes, considered as if they had not been issued at all and, therefore, they have not the effect of cancelling the bail of petitioner. it is, besides, highly unjust to compel petitioner to support the heavy expenses entailed in posting a new bond in the amount of P20,000.

If logic and consistency have any meaning, the annulment of the two orders complained of must restore petitioner to the legal status which was illegally disturbed by the two illegal orders. petitioners must be set free and given freedom on the bail bond posted on September 15, 1945.

To require petitioner to file a new bond in the amount of P20,000, which must be submitted to the approval of the People’s Court, and to reverse to the Office of Special Prosecutors the right of privilege "to petition the People’s Court for the cancellation of said bail," seems to us not only contrary to all elements of consistency, but tends to make of judicial procedure not as a means of settling rights and ending litigations, but as a sort of cloth of Penelope or a jigsaw puzzle which is made and broken, remade and again broken, until the player gets tired or exhausted.

We vote to order the immediate release of petitioner on his bail bond posted September 15, 1945, without the necessity of filing another one.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1946 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-600 October 1, 1946 - SOLEDAD PEÑA DE LUZ v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    077 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-879 October 2, 1946 - EDUARDO GOMEZ v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    077 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-982 October 2, 1946 - FRANCISCO C. DE LA RAMA v. PEOPLE’S COURT

    077 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 8197 October 2, 1946 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MARCELINO ADORABLE, ET AL.

    077 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. L-264 October 4, 1946 - VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION v. JACINTA BALDOMAR, ET AL.

    077 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-142 October 5, 1946 - URSU LUANGCO, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF TACLOBAN

    077 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-608 October 7, 1946 - PROCOPIO BELTRAN v. POMPEYO DIAZ, ET AL.

    077 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-425 October 10, 1946 - SEVERINA BONOAN DE YABUT v. JUAN VENTURA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-47673 October 10, 1946 - KOPPEL (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    077 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-832 October 10, 1946 - ETHEL CASE, ET AL. v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-708 October 24, 1946 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. MILAGROS S. LEGASPI, ET AL.

    077 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-337 October 25, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO FELICIANO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-387 October 25, 1946 - BALBINA MENDOZA v. PACIANO DIZON

    077 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. L-658 October 25, 1946 - GABRIEL VDA. DE MENDOZA v. GREGORIO PALACIO

    077 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-64 October 28, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL M. MORENO

    077 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-49887 October 28, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO TOLENTINO

    077 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. L-283 October 30, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVESTRE CARILLO

    077 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-49200 October 30, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA ABAD

    077 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. L-827 October 31, 1946 - MATEO PERALTA v. ROMUALDO

    077 Phil 615