ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 129604. July 12, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12, 1999.

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

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision1 [Promulgated on May 8, 1997, penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, concurred in by Justices Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Rollo, pp. 15-23.] of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition for certiorari filed before it, of the following orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Manila,2 [Presided over by Judge Roberto A. Barrios.] in Criminal Case No. 93-129988, to wit:

1. Order dated December 12, 1995, granting private respondents' Motion for Bail; and

2. Order dated April 22, 1996; denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the above order;

for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

An information for murder committed against Emmanuel Mendoza was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Tanauan, Batangas, against private respondents Joven de Grano, Armando de Grano and Estanislao Lacaba, together with Leonides Landicho, Domingo Landicho and Leonardo Genil. On Motion of petitioner, the venue was transferred to Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Manila, and docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-93-129988.

Upon arraignment, respondents Joven de Grano, Armando de Grano and Estanislao Lacaba pleaded not guilty; while co-accused Leonides Landicho, Domingo Landicho and Leonardo Genil remained at large.

Private respondents filed a motion for bail contending that the prosecution's evidence was not strong. The trial court held in abeyance the resolution of the motion and allowed prosecution to present evidence. After prosecution rested its case and private respondents presented four (4) witnesses, the latter reiterated the motion for bail.

The hearing of the application for bail ensued, wherein prosecution presented eyewitness Teresita Duran and Dr. Leonardo Salvador, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the victim's body. After the hearing, the trial court granted the motion for bail, ruling that the evidence presented to prove the existence of treachery and evident premeditation was not strong. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeal, contending that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for bail of private respondents. On May 8, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied the petition.3 [Rollo, pp. 15-23.] The appellate court held that since the prosecution's lone eyewitness did not see the actual shooting or the events which led to the same, no direct evidence was presented to prove treachery and evident premeditation. The appellate court found prosecution's evidence to be weak and insufficient.

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Petitioner contends that it has adequately proven the attendance of treachery and evident premeditation in the killing of Mendoza. The prosecution admitted that it may have failed to prove treachery and evident premeditation on the first attack on the victim. However, witness Duran testified that, upon instruction of respondent Joven de Grano, respondents returned and again shot the victim who was already defenseless and helpless. The second attack adequately established the presence of treachery and evident premeditation.

We resolve to grant the petition.

In the instant case, the private respondents were charged with murder.4 [Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.] After conducting the requisite hearing for the motion for bail, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove that treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing. The lone eyewitness testified as the circumstances of the second attack on the victim, as the latter was defenseless. Even if treachery was absent in the first attach, it was present in the second attack and treachery existed at the time of the killing. Furthermore, instead of leaving the prostrate and defenseless body of the victim's death. Respondents employed means, methods and manner of execution that would ensure their safety from any defensive and retalitory act on the part of the victim.5 [Rollo, Petition, p. 8.] Hence, treachery can be appreciated. Thus, the evidence of guilt of the crime charged, that is, murder, is strong.

When the accused is charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied, as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion.6 [Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281, 300, citing Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 155.] "The determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong, in this regard, is a matter of judicial discretion, this Court would unhesitatingly reverse the trial court's findings if found to be laced with grave abuse of discretion."7 [People v. Hon. Alfredo Cabral and Roderick Odiamar, G.R. No. 131909, February 18, 1999.]

We agree with the prosecution that the evidence of guilt against the private respondents for the crime of murder is strong.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 41110 and the orders of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 11, granting bail to respondents in Criminal Cas3e No. 93-12998. We deny the motion for bail filed by the accused therein, pending trial and finality of the aforesaid case. the court a quo shall immediately issue a warran for the rearrest of the accused, if their bail bonds have been approved and thereafter, proceed with dispatch in the disposition of the said case. this resolution is immediately executory.

No costs. Ynares-Santiagi, J., no part.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE