[A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335.

March 5, 1997]
INOCENCIO BASCO, complainant, vs. JUDE !EO ". RA#ATA!O, R$%&o'a( Tr&a(
Co)r*, Bra'ch 3+, A%oo, !a U'&o', respondent.
R E S O ! U T I O N
ROMERO, J.,
In a sworn letter-complaint dated August 14, 1995, complainant Inocencio Basco
charged respondent Judge Leo M. apatalo o! "#, Branch $%, Agoo, La &nion with
gross ignorance or will!ul disregard o! esta'lished rule o! law !or granting 'ail to an
accused in a murder case (#riminal #ase )o. %9%*+ without recei,ing e,idence and
conducting a hearing.
#omplainant, who is the !ather o! the ,ictim, alleged that an in!ormation !or murder
was !iled against a certain oger Morente, one o! three accused. "he accused Morente
!iled a petition !or 'ail. "he hearing !or said petition was set !or Ma- $1, 1995 '- petitioner
'ut was not heard since the respondent Judge was then on lea,e. It was reset to June .,
1995 'ut on said date, respondent Judge reset it to June %%, 1995. "he hearing !or June
%%, 1995, howe,er, did not materiali/e. Instead, the accused was arraigned and trial was
set. Again, the petition !or 'ail was not heard on said date as the prosecution0s witnesses
in connection with said petition were not noti!ied. Another attempt was made to reset the
hearing to Jul- 1*, 1995.
In the meantime, complainant allegedl- saw the accused in osario, La &nion on
Jul- $, 1995. 1e later learned that the accused was out on 'ail despite the !act that the
petition had not 'een heard at all. &pon in,estigation, complainant disco,ered that 'ail
had 'een granted and a release order dated June %9, 1995
i213
was issued on the 'asis o! a
marginal note
ii2%3
dated June %%, 1995, at the 'ottom o! the 'ail petition '- Assistant
4rosecutor Manuel 5li,a which stated6 7)o o'8ection6 4.9,999.99,7 signed and appro,ed
'- the assistant prosecutor and e,entuall- '- respondent Judge. )ote that there was
alread- a release order dated June %9, 1995 on the 'asis o! the marginal note o! the
Assistant 4rosecutor dated June %%, 1995 (when the hearing o! the petition !or 'ail was
a'orted and instead arraignment too: place+ when another hearing was scheduled !or
Jul- 1*, 1995.
In his comment dated 5cto'er 1;, 1995, respondent Judge alleged that he granted
the petition 'ased on the prosecutor0s option not to oppose the petition as well as the
latter0s recommendation setting the 'ail'ond in the amount o! 4.9,999.99. 1e a,erred that
when the prosecution chose not to oppose the petition !or 'ail, he had the discretion on
whether to appro,e it or not. 1e !urther declared that when he appro,ed the petition, he
had a right to presume that the prosecutor :new what he was doing since he was more
!amiliar with the case, ha,ing conducted the preliminar- in,estigation. <urthermore, the
pri,ate prosecutor was not around at the time the pu'lic prosecutor recommended 'ail.
espondent Judge stated that in an- case, the 'ail'ond posted '- accused was
cancelled and a warrant !or his arrest was issued on account o! complainant0s motion !or
reconsideration. "he Assistant 4ro,incial 4rosecutor apparentl- con!ormed to and
appro,ed the motion !or reconsideration.
iii2$3
"o date, accused is con!ined at the La &nion
4ro,incial Jail.
A 'etter understanding o! 'ail as an aspect o! criminal procedure entails appreciating
its nature and purposes. 7Bail7 is the securit- re=uired '- the court and gi,en '- the
accused to ensure that the accused appears 'e!ore the proper court at the scheduled time
and place to answer the charges 'rought against him or her. In theor-, the onl- !unction o!
'ail is to ensure the appearance o! the de!endant at the time set !or trial. "he sole purpose
o! con!ining the accused in 8ail 'e!ore con,iction, it has 'een o'ser,ed, is to assure his
presence at the trial.
i,243
In other words, i! the denial o! 'ail is authori/ed in capital o!!enses,
it is onl- in theor- that the proo! 'eing strong, the de!endant would !lee, i! he has the
opportunit-, rather than !ace the ,erdict o! the court. 1ence the e>ception to the
!undamental right to 'e 'ailed should 'e applied in direct ratio to the e>tent o! pro'a'ilit-
o! e,asion o! the prosecution.
,253
In practice, 'ail has also 'een used to pre,ent the release
o! an accused who might otherwise 'e dangerous to societ- or whom the 8udges might not
want to release.7
,i2;3
It is in ,iew o! the a'o,ementioned practical !unction o! 'ail that it is not a matter o!
right in cases where the person is charged with a capital o!!ense punisha'le '- death,
reclusion perpetua or li!e imprisonment. Article 114, section * o! the ules o! #ourt, as
amended, states, 7)o person charged with a capital o!!ense, or an o!!ense punisha'le '-
reclusion perpetua or li!e imprisonment when the e,idence o! guilt is strong, shall 'e
admitted to 'ail regardless o! the stage o! the criminal action.7
?hen the grant o! 'ail is discretionar-, the prosecution has the 'urden o! showing
that the e,idence o! guilt against the accused is strong. 1owe,er, the determination o!
whether or not the e,idence o! guilt is strong, 'eing a matter o! 8udicial discretion, remains
with the 8udge. 7"his discretion '- the ,er- nature o! things, ma- rightl- 'e e>ercised onl-
a!ter the e,idence is su'mitted to the court at the hearing. @ince the discretion is directed
to the weight o! the e,idence and since e,idence cannot properl- 'e weighed i! not dul-
e>hi'ited or produced 'e!ore the court,
,ii2*3
it is o',ious that a proper e>ercise o! 8udicial
discretion re=uires that the e,idence o! guilt 'e su'mitted to the court, the petitioner
ha,ing the right o! cross e>amination and to introduce his own e,idence in re'uttal.7
,iii2.3
"o 'e sure, the discretion o! the trial court, 7is not a'solute nor 'e-ond control. It
must 'e sound, and e>ercised within reasona'le 'ounds. Judicial discretion, '- its ,er-
nature in,ol,es the e>ercise o! the 8udge0s indi,idual opinion and the law has wisel-
pro,ided that its e>ercise 'e guided '- well-:nown rules which, while allowing the 8udge
rational latitude !or the operation o! his own indi,idual ,iews, pre,ent them !rom getting
out o! control. An uncontrolled or uncontrolla'le discretion on the part o! a 8udge is a
misnomer. It is a !allac-. Lord Mans!ield, spea:ing o! the discretion to 'e e>ercised in
granting or den-ing 'ail said6 7But discretion when applied to a court o! 8ustice, means
sound discretion guided '- law. It must 'e go,erned '- rule, not '- humourA it must not 'e
ar'itrar-, ,ague and !anci!ulA 'ut legal and regular.7
i>293
#onse=uentl-, in the application !or 'ail o! a person charged with a capital o!!ense
cpunisha'le '- death, reclusion perpetua or li!e imprisonment, a hearing, whether
summar- or otherwise in the discretion o! the court, must actuall- 'e conducted to
determine whether or not the e,idence o! guilt against the accused is strong. 7A summar-
hearing means such 'rie! and speed- method o! recei,ing and considering the e,idence
o! guilt as is practica'le and consistent with the purpose o! hearing which is merel- to
determine the weight o! e,idence !or the purposes o! 'ail. 5n such hearing, the court does
not sit to tr- the merits or to enter into an- nice in=uir- as to the weight that ought to 'e
allowed to the e,idence !or or against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome o!
the trial or on what !urther e,idence ma- 'e therein o!!ered and admitted. "he course o!
in=uir- ma- 'e le!t to the discretion o! the court which ma- con!ine itsel! to recei,ing such
e,idence as has re!erence to su'stantial matters, a,oiding unnecessar- thoroughness in
the e>amination and cross e>amination.7
>2193
I! a part- is denied the opportunit- to 'e
heard, there would 'e a ,iolation o! procedural due process.
"hat it is mandator- !or the 8udge to re=uire a hearing in a petition !or 'ail is
emphasi/ed in the !ollowing cases6
(1+ #$o-($ .. So(a decided in 19.1.
>i2113
In this case se,en separate
in!ormation !or murder were !iled against the accused @ola and 1. other
persons. A!ter preliminar- in,estigation, the municipal trial court issued
warrants !or their arrest. 1owe,er without gi,ing the prosecution the
opportunit- to pro,e that the e,idence o! guilt against the accused is strong. the
court granted them the right to post 'ail !or their temporar- release. #iting
4eople ,. @an Biego,
>ii21%3
we held6 7?e are o! the considered opinion that
whether the motion !or 'ail o! a de!endant who is in custod- !or a capital
o!!ense 'e resol,ed in a summar- proceeding or in the course o! a regular trial,
the prosecution must 'e gi,en an opportunit- to present, within a reasona'le
time, all the e,idence that it ma- desire to introduce 'e!ore the court should
resol,e the motion !or 'ail. I!, as in the criminal case in,ol,ed in the instant
special ci,il action, the prosecution should 'e denied such an opportunit-, there
would 'e a ,iolation o! procedural due process, and the order o! the court
granting 'ail should 'e considered ,oid on that ground.7
(%+ #$o-($ .. Dac)/ao decided in 19.9.
>iii21$3
In this case, an
in!ormation was !iled against the accused !or murder, a non-'aila'le o!!ense.
"he 8udge, without conducting an- hearing, granted 'ail on the ground that
there was not enough e,idence to warrant a case !or murder 'ecause onl-
a!!ida,its o! the prosecution witnesses who were allegedl- not e-ewitnesses to
the crime were !iled. ?e held6 7?hate,er the court possessed at the time it
issued the =uestioned ruling was intended onl- !or prima !acie determining
whether or not there is su!!icient ground to engender a well !ounded 'elie! that
the crime was committed and pinpointing the persons who pro'a'l- committed
it. ?hether or not the e,idence o! guilt is strong !or each indi,idual accused still
has to esta'lished unless the prosecution su'mits the issue on whate,er it has
alread- presented. "o appreciate the strength or wea:ness o! the e,idence o!
guilt, the prosecution must 'e consulted or held. It is e=uall- entitled to due
process.7
($+ #$o-($ .. Ca(o decided in 1999.
>i,2143
In this case, the prosecution
was scheduled to present nine witnesses at the hearings held to determine
whether the e,idence against the pri,ate respondents was strong. A!ter hearing
the !i!th witness, the respondent 8udge insisted on terminating the proceedings.
?e held6 7"he prosecution in the instant case was not gi,en ade=uate
opportunit- to pro,e that there is strong e,idence o! guilt and to present within
a reasona'le time all the e,idence it desired to present.7
(4+ !&0ar&o1 .. Da0a(o decided in 1991
>,2153
which in,ol,ed an
administrati,e complaint against the respondent 8udge !or ignorance o! the law
and gra,e a'use o! discretion. In this case, the respondent 8udge, without
conducting an- prior hearing, directed the issuance o! a warrant o! arrest
against the accused charged with murder, !i>ing at the same time the 'ail at
459,999.99 each on the ground that the e,idence against them was merel-
circumstantial. ?e held6 7?here a person is accused o! a capital o!!ense, the
trial court must conduct a hearing in a summar- proceeding to allow the
prosecution to present, within a reasona'le time, all e,idence it ma- desire to
produce to pro,e that the e,idence o! guilt against the accused is strong 'e!ore
resol,ing the issue o! 'ail !or the temporar- release o! the accused. <ailure to
conduct a hearing 'e!ore !i>ing 'ail in the instant case amounted to a ,iolation
o! due process.7 "he respondent 8udge was ordered to pa- a !ine o!
4%9,999.99 and warned to e>ercise more care in the per!ormance o! his duties.
(5+ #$o-($ .. Na'o decided in 199%.
>,i21;3
In this case. the 8udge issued
an order admitting the accused in a :idnapping and murder case to 'ail without
an- hearing. ?e held6 7"he prosecution must !irst 'e gi,en an opportunit- to
present e,idence 'ecause '- the ,er- nature o! deciding applications !or 'ail, it
is on the 'asis o! such e,idence that 8udicial discretion is weighed against in
determining whether the guilt o! the accused is strong.7
(;+ #&co .. Co20o'%, Jr. decided in 199%.
>,ii21*3
In this administrati,e
case, the respondent 8udge granted 'ail to an accused charged with an o!!ense
punisha'le '- reclusion perpetua , without notice and hearing and e,en 'e!ore
the accused had 'een arrested or detained. ?e held6 7It is well settled that an
application !or 'ail !rom a person charged with a capital o!!ense (now an
o!!ense punisha'le '- reclusion perpetua+ must 'e set !or hearing at which
'oth the de!ense and the prosecution must 'e gi,en reasona'le opportunit- to
pro,e (in case o! the prosecution+ that the e,idence o! guilt o! the applicant is
strong, or (in the case o! the de!ense+ that such e,idence o! guilt was not
strong.7 "he respondent 8udge was ordered to pa- a !ine o! 4%9,999.99 and
warned to e>ercise greater care and diligence in the per!ormance o! his duties.
(*+ D$ )&a .. Ma%(a(a'% decided in 199$,
>,iii21.3
the respondent 8udge
issued a warrant o! arrest and also !i>ed the 'ail o! an accused charged with
the non 'aila'le o!!ense o! statutor- rape without allowing the prosecution an
opportunit- to show that the e,idence o! guilt against the accused is strong.
espondent 8udge alleged that the onl- e,idence on record C the sworn
statements o! the complaining witness and her guardian C were not su!!icient
to 8usti!- the denial o! 'ail. ?e held6 7It is an esta'lished principle that in cases
where a person is accused o! a capital o!!ense, the trial court must conduct a
hearing in a summar- proceeding, to allow the prosecution an opportunit- to
present, within a reasona'le time, all e,idence it ma- desire to produce to
pro,e that the e,idence o! guilt against the accused is strong, 'e!ore resol,ing
the issue o! 'ail !or the temporar- release o! the accused. <ailure to conduct a
hearing 'e!ore !i>ing 'ail amounts to a ,iolation o! due process.7 It was noted
that the warrant o! arrest was returned unser,ed and that a!ter the case was re-
ra!!led to the complainant 8udge0s sala, the warrant was set aside and
cancelled. "here was no e,idence on record showing whether the appro,ed
'ail was re,o:ed '- the complainant 8udge, whether the accused was
apprehended or whether the accused !iled an application !or 'ail. 1ence, the
respondent 8udge was ordered to pa- a !ine o! 45,999.99 instead o! the usual
4%9,999.99 that the court imposes on 8udges who grant the application o! 'ail
without notice and hearing.
(.+ Bor&'a%a .. Ta2&' decided in 199$.
>i>2193
In this case, a complaint
!or murder was !iled against !i,e persons. ?hile the preliminar- in,estigation
was pending in the Municipal #ircuit "rial #ourt, a petition !or 'ail was !iled '-
one o! the accused 'e!ore the respondent 8udge in the egional "rial #ourt.
"he respondent 8udge ordered the prosecutor to appear at the hearing to
present e,idence that the guilt o! the accused is strong. At the scheduled
hearing, the pu'lic prosecutor !ailed to appear prompting the respondent to
grant the application !or 'ail. ?e held6 7?hether the motion !or 'ail o! an
accused who is in custod- !or a capital o!!ense 'e resol,ed in a summar-
proceeding or in the course o! a regular trial, the prosecution must 'e gi,en an
opportunit- to present within a reasona'le time all e,idence it ma- desire to
introduce 'e!ore the court ma- resol,e the motion !or 'ail.7 "he respondent
8udge was !ined 4%9,999.99 and was warned that the commission o! a similar
o!!ense in the !uture will 'e dealt with more se,erel-.
(9+ A)r&((o .. 3ra'c&1co decided in 1994.
>>2%93
In this administrati,e
case, the respondent 8udge issued two separate warrants o! arrest against two
persons charged with murder and parricide, 'ut !i>ed the amount o! 'ail !or
each accused without noti!-ing the prosecution o! an- motion to !i> 'ail nor o!
an- order granting the same. #iting 4eople ,. Bacudao,
>>i2%13
we held6 7A hearing
is a'solutel- indispensa'le 'e!ore a 8udge can properl- determine whether the
prosecution0s e,idence is wea: or strong. 1ence, a denial o! the prosecution0s
re=uest to adduce e,idence, depri,es it o! procedural due process, a right to
which it is e=uall- entitled as the de!ense. A hearing is re=uired to a!!ord the
8udge a 'asis !or determining the e>istence o! those !actors set !orth under
ule 114, @ec ;.7 "he respondent 8udge was ordered to pa- a !ine o! 4%9,999
with a warning that the commission o! the same or similar acts in the !uture will
'e dealt with more se,erel-.
(19+ E1*o4a .. A0raha2-S&'%1o' decided in 1994
>>ii2%%3
In this case, an
administrati,e complaint was !iled against the respondent 8udge, alleging,
among others, that she granted an application !or 'ail !iled '- the accused
charged with murder. "he grant was made o,er the o'8ection o! the prosecution
which insisted that the e,idence o! guilt was strong and without allowing the
prosecution to present e,idence in this regard. ?e held6 7In immediatel-
granting 'ail and !i>ing it at onl- 4%9,999.99 !or each o! the accused without
allowing the prosecution to present its e,idence, the respondent denied the
prosecution due process. "his #ourt had said so in man- cases and had
imposed sanctions on 8udges who granted applications !or 'ail in capital
o!!enses and in o!!enses punisha'le '- reclusion perpetua without gi,ing the
prosecution the opportunit- to pro,e that the e,idence o! guilt is strong.7 "he
respondent 8udge was dismissed !rom ser,ice 'ecause the erroneous granting
o! 'ail was 8ust one o! the o!!enses !ound to ha,e 'een committed '- her in the
a!oresaid complaint.
(11+ A%)&rr$ .. B$(2o'*$ decided in 1994.
>>iii2%$3
In this administrati,e
case the respondent 8udge issued warrants o! arrest and, at the same time and
on his own motion. authori/ed the pro,isional release on 'ail o! the accused in
two criminal cases !or murder. "he accused were still at large at the time the
order granting 'ail was issued. ?e held6 7A hearing is mandator- 'e!ore 'ail
can 'e granted to an accused who is charged with a capital o!!ense.7 "he 8udge
was ordered to pa- a !ine o! 4%5,999.99 with a warning that a repetition o! the
same or similar acts in the !uture will 'e dealt with more se,erel-. 1e was
meted a !ine in a higher amount than the usual 4%9,999.99 'ecause it in,ol,ed
two criminal cases wherein the respondent 8udge, 7was not onl- the grantor o!
'ail 'ut li:ewise the applicant there!or.7
(1%+ !ar/&5a0a( .. R$4$1 decided in 1994.
>>i,2%43
In this administrati,e
case, the respondent 8udge issued an order directing the arrest o! the accused
charged with rape and, motu proprio, !i>ed the 'ail o! the accused in the
amount o! 4.9,999.99 without application on the part o! the accused to 'e
admitted to 'ail. ?hen the accused !iled a motion to reduce 'ail'ond, the
respondent 8udge again, without an- prior notice and hearing, reduced the 'ail
to 449,999.99. ?e held6 7"he rule is e>plicit that when an accused is charged
with a serious o!!ense punisha'le '- reclusion perpetua, such as rape, 'ail ma-
'e granted onl- a!ter a motion !or that purpose has 'een !iled '- the accused
and a hearing thereon conducted '- a 8udge to determine whether or not the
prosecution0s e,idence o! guilt is strong.7 "he respondent 8udge was ordered to
pa- a !ine o! 4%9,999.99 with a warning that a repetition o! similar or the same
o!!ense will 'e dealt with more se,erel-.
(1$+ )&(($r2o .. R$4$1 decided in 1995
>>,2%53
in,ol,ing an administrati,e
complaint against the respondent 8udge !or granting 'ail to the two accused
charged with serious illegal detention. ?hen the two accused !irst !iled a 8oint
application !or 'ail, the petition !or 'ail was dul- heard and the e,idence o!!ered
'- the accused and the prosecution in opposition thereto were properl- ta:en
into account. 1owe,er, the respondent 8udge denied the application !or 'ail on
the ground that it was premature since the accused were not -et in custod- o!
the law. In a su'se=uent order, the respondent 8udge, without conducting an-
hearing on the a!orestated application and there'- den-ing the prosecution an
opportunit- to oppose the same, granted said petition upon the ,oluntar-
appearance in court o! the two accused. espondent 8udge insisted that there
was a hearing 'ut the proceeding he ad,erted to was that which was
conducted when the motion !or 'ail was !irst considered and then denied !or
'eing premature. ?e held6 7"he error o! the respondent 8udge lies in the !act
that in his su'se=uent consideration o! the application !or 'ail, he acted
a!!irmati,el- thereon without conducting another hearing and what is worse, his
order concededl- lac:ed the re=uisite summar- or resume o! the e,idence
presented '- the parties and necessar- to support the grant o! 'ail.7 "he
respondent 8udge was reprimanded 'ecause despite the irregularit- in the
procedure adopted in the proceeding, the prosecution was undenia'l- a!!orded
the 'ene!it o! notice and hearing. )o erroneous appreciation o! the e,idence
was alleged nor did the prosecution indicate its desire to introduce additional
e,idence in an appropriate challenge to the a!orestated grant o! 'ail '- the
respondent.
(14+ Sa'*o1 .. O6&(a/a decided in 1995.
>>,i2%;3
In this case, an
administrati,e complaint was !iled against the respondent 8udge, who, without
notice and hearing to the prosecution, granted 'ail to an accused charged with
murder and illegal possession o! !irearm. ?e held6 7?here admission to 'ail is
a matter o! discretion, a hearing is mandator- 'e!ore an accused can 'e
granted 'ail. At the hearing, 'oth the prosecution and the de!ense must 'e
gi,en reasona'le opportunit- to pro,e, in case o! the prosecution, that the
e,idence o! guilt o! the applicant is strong, and in the case o! the de!ense, that
e,idence o! such guilt is not strong.7 "he respondent 8udge was ordered to pa-
a !ine o! 4%9,999.99 with a warning that a repetition o! similar acts will warrant
a more se,ere sanction.
(15+ S)($ .. B&*$'% decided in 1995.
>>,ii2%*3
In this administrati,e case, the
respondent 8udge, without a!!ording the prosecution the opportunit- to 'e
heard, granted with indecent haste the petition !or 'ail !iled '- the accused
charged with murder 'ecause the accused 7> > > ,oluntaril- surrendered to the
authorities as soon as he was in!ormed that he was one o! the suspect (sic+ > >
>7 ?e held6 7?ith his open admission that he granted 'ail to the accused
without gi,ing the prosecution an- opportunit- to 'e heard, the respondent
deli'eratel- disregarded decisions o! this court holding that such act amounts
to a denial o! due process, and made himsel! administrati,el- lia'le !or gross
ignorance o! the law !or which appropriate sanctions ma- 'e imposed.7 "he
respondent 8udge was ordered to pa- a !ine o! 4%9,999.99 and warned that
commission o! the same or similar acts in the !uture will 'e dealt with more
se,erel-.
(1;+ R$42)a(/o B)5o', Jr. .. J)/%$ T&r1o 7$(a1co decided in
199;.
>>,iii2%.3
In this administrati,e case, the respondent 8udge, without hearing
nor comment !rom the prosecution, granted 'ail to an accused charged with
murder. )ota'l-, no 'ail was recommended in the warrant o! arrest. ?e held6
7?hen 'ail is a matter o! discretion, the 8udge is re=uired to conduct a hearing
and to gi,e notice o! such hearing to the !iscal or re=uire him to su'mit his
recommendation. > > > "rul-, a 8udge would not 'e in a position to determine
whether the prosecution0s e,idence is wea: or strong unless a hearing is !irst
conducted.7 A !ine o! 4%9,999.99 was imposed on the respondent 8udge with
the stern warning that a repetition o! the same or similar acts in the !uture will
'e dealt with more se,erel-.
"he a!orecited cases are all to the e!!ect that when 'ail is discretionar-, a hearing,
whether summar- or otherwise in the discretion o! the court, should !irst 'e conducted to
determine the e>istence o! strong e,idence, or lac: o! it, against the accused to ena'le
the 8udge to ma:e an intelligent assessment o! the e,idence presented '- the parties.
@ince the determination o! whether or not the e,idence o! guilt against the accused
is strong is a matter o! 8udicial discretion, the 8udge is mandated to conduct a hearing e,en
in cases where the prosecution chooses to 8ust !ile a comment or lea,e the application !or
'ail to the discretion o! the court. 1ence6
(1+ In the case o! Dimeno ,. Arcueno, @r.,
>>i>2%93
an administrati,e
complaint was !iled against the respondent 8udge !or granting 'ail to one o! the
accused in a ro''er- with homicide case without a!!ording the prosecution a
chance to 'e heard. "he respondent 8udge e>plained that he issued an order
!or the motion to !i> 'ail 'ut the pu'lic prosecutor !iled a comment instead
which respondent 8udge thought was ade=uate compliance with law.
espondent added that the e,idence o! guilt o! the accused, as disclosed '-
the records, was not so strong as to den- the application !or 'ail. In !act, the
accused who !iled !or 'ail, together with three others, were later dropped '- the
5!!ice o! the 4ro,incial 4rosecutor !rom the in!ormation !or !ailure o! the
witnesses to positi,el- identi!- them. ?e held6 7"he grant o! 'ail is a matter o!
right e>cept in cases in,ol,ing capital o!!enses when the matter is le!t to the
sound discretion o! the court. "hat discretion lies, not in the determination
whether or not a hearing should 'e held 'ut in the appreciation and e,aluation
o! the prosecution0s e,idence o! guilt against the accused. > > > A hearing is
plainl- indispensa'le 'e!ore a 8udge can aptl- 'e said to 'e in a position to
determine whether the e,idence !or the prosecution is wea: or strong.7
Although the respondent 8udge0s e>planation was not enough to completel-
e>culpate him, the circumstances, coupled with his sincere 'elie! in the
propriet- o! his order warranted a mitigation o! the usual sanction the #ourt
imposes in cases o! this nature. "he respondent 8udge was ordered to pa- a
!ine o! 45,999.99 and warned that a repetition o! the same or similar act in the
!uture will 'e dealt with more se,erel-.
(%+ In the case o! #oncerned #iti/ens ,. Elma,
>>>2$93
an administrati,e
complaint was !iled against the respondent 8udge !or granting 'ail to a person
charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and esta!a in !i,e separate
in!ormation. "he accused !iled a motion to !i> 'ail and the respondent 8udge
instead o! setting the application !or hearing, directed the prosecution to !ile its
comment or opposition. "he prosecution su'mitted its comment lea,ing the
application !or 'ail to the discretion o! the court. "he respondent 8udge, in
granting the 'ail o! the accused rationali/ed that in ordering the prosecution to
comment on the accused0s motion to !i> 'ail, he has su'stantiall- complied with
the re=uirement o! a !ormal hearing. 1e !urther claimed that he re=uired the
prosecution to adduce e,idence 'ut the latter re!used and le!t the determination
o! the motion to his discretion. "his #ourt held, 7It is true that the weight o! the
e,idence adduced is addressed to the sound discretion o! the court. 1owe,er,
such discretion ma- onl- 'e e>ercised a!ter the hearing called to ascertain the
degree o! guilt o! the accused !or the purpose o! determining whether or not he
should 'e granted li'ert-. > > > In the case at 'ar, howe,er, no !ormal hearing
was conducted '- the respondent 8udge. 1e could not ha,e assessed the
weight o! e,idence against the accused Datus 'e!ore granting the latter0s
application !or 'ail.7 "he respondent 8udge was dismissed !rom ser,ice
'ecause he was pre,iousl- !ined !or a similar o!!ense and was sternl- warned
that a repetition o! the same or similar o!!ense would 'e dealt with more
se,erel-.
($+ In the case o! Ba-lon ,. @ison,
>>>i2$13
an administrati,e complaint
was !iled against the respondent 8udge !or granting 'ail to se,eral accused in a
dou'le murder case. "he respondent 8udge claimed that he granted the
application !or 'ail 'ecause the assistant prosecutor who was present at the
hearing did not interpose an o'8ection thereto and that the prosecution ne,er
re=uested that it 'e allowed to show that the e,idence o! guilt is strong 'ut
instead, su'mitted the incident !or resolution. "he respondent 8udge !urther
claimed that the motion !or reconsideration o! the order granting 'ail was
denied onl- a!ter due consideration o! the pertinent a!!ida,its. ?e held6 7"he
discretion o! the court, in cases in,ol,ing capital o!!enses ma- 'e e>ercised
onl- a!ter there has 'een a hearing called to ascertain the weight o! the
e,idence against the accused. 4eremptoril-, the discretion lies, not in
determining whether or not there will 'e a hearing, 'ut in appreciating and
e,aluating the weight o! the e,idence o! guilt against the accused.7 "he
respondent 8udge was ordered to pa- a !ine o! 4%9,999.99 with a stern warning
that the commission o! the same or similar o!!ense in the !uture would 'e dealt
with more se,erel-.
A hearing is li:ewise re=uired i! the prosecution re!uses to adduce e,idence in
opposition to the application to grant and !i> 'ail. 7"he importance o! a hearing has 'een
emphasi/ed in not a !ew cases wherein the court ruled that e,en i! the prosecution
re!uses to adduce e,idence or !ails to interpose an o'8ection to the motion !or 'ail, it is still
mandator- !or the court to conduct a hearing or as: searching =uestions !rom which it ma-
in!er the strength o! the e,idence o! guilt, or the lac: o! it, against the accused.7
>>>ii2$%3
In the recent case o! "uca- ,. Bomagas,
>>>iii2$$3
an administrati,e complaint was !iled
against the respondent 8udge !or granting 'ail to an accused charged with murder. "he
application !or 'ail contained the annotation 7)o o'8ection7 o! the pro,incial prosecutor
and the respondent 8udge, without holding a hearing to determine whether the e,idence o!
the prosecution was strong, granted 'ail and ordered the release o! the accused !rom
detention with instructions to the 'ondsman to register the 'ond with the egister o!
Beeds within ten da-s. It was later !ound out that the assessed ,alue o! the propert- gi,en
was short o! the amount !i>ed !or the release o! the accused. ?e held6 7Although the
pro,incial prosecutor had interposed no o'8ection to the grant o! 'ail to the accused,
respondent 8udge should ha,e ne,ertheless ha,e set the petition !or 'ail !or hearing and
diligentl- ascertained !rom the prosecution whether the latter was not reall- contesting the
'ail application. > > > 5nl- a!ter satis!-ing himsel! that the prosecution did not wish to
oppose the petition !or 'ail !or 8usti!ia'le cause (e.g., !or tactical reasons+ and ta:ing into
account the !actors enumerated in ule 114, @ec. ; !or !i>ing 'ail should respondent 8udge
ha,e ordered the petition !or 'ail and ordered the release o! the accused.7 espondent
8udge herein was ordered to pa- a !ine o! 4%9,999.99 and was gi,en a stern warning that
the commission o! a similar o!!ense in the !uture would 'e dealt with more se,erel-.
#orollaril-, another reason wh- hearing o! a petition !or 'ail is re=uired, as can 'e
gleaned !rom the a'o,ecited case, is !or the court to ta:e into consideration the guidelines
set !orth in @ection ;, ule 114 o! the ules o! #ourt in !i>ing the amount o! 'ail.
>>>i,2$43
"his
#ourt, in a num'er o! cases
>>>,2$53
held that e,en i! the prosecution !ails to adduce e,idence
in opposition to an application !or 'ail o! an accused, the court ma- still re=uire that it
answer =uestions in order to ascertain not onl- the strength o! the state0s e,idence 'ut
also the ade=uac- o! the amount o! 'ail.
A!ter hearing, the court0s order granting or re!using 'ail must contain a summar- o!
the e,idence !or the prosecution.
>>>,i2$;3
5n the 'asis thereo!, the 8udge should then
!ormulate his own conclusion as to whether the e,idence so presented is strong enough
as to indicate the guilt o! the accused. 5therwise, the order granting or den-ing the
application !or 'ail ma- 'e in,alidated 'ecause the summar- o! e,idence !or the
prosecution which contains the 8udge0s e,aluation o! the e,idence ma- 'e considered as
an aspect o! procedural due process !or 'oth the prosecution and the de!ense.
"his court in the case o! #arpio ,. Maglalang
>>>,ii2$*3
in,alidated the order o!
respondent 8udge granting 'ail to the accused 'ecause 7?ithout summari/ing the !actual
'asis o! its order granting 'ail, the court merel- stated the num'er o! prosecution
witnesses 'ut not their respecti,e testimonies, and concluded that the e,idence presented
'- the prosecution was not 7su!!icientl- strong7 to den- 'ail to Escano.7
?ith the mounting precedents, this #ourt sees no reason wh- it has to repeatedl-
remind trial court 8udges to per!orm their mandator- dut- o! conducting the re=uired
hearing in 'ail applications where the accused stands charged with a capital o!!ense.
An e,aluation o! the records in the case at 'ar re,eals that respondent Judge
granted 'ail to the accused without !irst conducting a hearing to pro,e that the guilt o! the
accused is strong despite his :nowledge that the o!!ense charged is a capital o!!ense in
disregard o! the procedure laid down in @ection ., ule 114 o! the ules o! #ourt as
amended '- Administrati,e #ircular )o. 1%-94.
espondent 8udge admittedl- granted the petition !or 'ail 'ased on the prosecution0s
declaration not to oppose the petition. espondent0s assertion, howe,er, that he has a
right to presume that the prosecutor :nows what he is doing on account o! the latter0s
!amiliarit- with the case due to his ha,ing conducted the preliminar- in,estigation is !ault-.
@aid reasoning is tantamount to ceding to the prosecutor the dut- o! e>ercising 8udicial
discretion to determine whether the guilt o! the accused is strong. Judicial discretion is the
domain o! the 8udge 'e!ore whom the petition !or pro,isional li'ert- will 'e decided. "he
mandated dut- to e>ercise discretion has ne,er 'een reposed upon the prosecutor.
In the case o! Montal'o ,. @antamaria,
>>>,iii2$.3
this #ourt held that the respondent
8udge is dut- 'ound to e>ercise 8udicial discretion con!erred upon him '- law to determine
whether in the case at 'ar, the proo! is e,ident or the presumption o! guilt is strong against
the de!endant and to grant or den- the petition !or pro,isional li'ert-. It also held that a writ
o! mandamus will lie in order to compel the respondent 8udge to per!orm a dut- imposed
upon him '- law.
"he a'sence o! o'8ection !rom the prosecution is ne,er a 'asis !or granting 'ail to
the accused. It is the court0s determination a!ter a hearing that the guilt o! the accused is
not strong that !orms the 'asis !or granting 'ail. espondent Judge should not ha,e relied
solel- on the recommendation made '- the prosecutor 'ut should ha,e ascertained
personall- whether the e,idence o! guilt is strong. A!ter all, the 8udge is not 'ound '- the
prosecutor0s recommendation. Moreo,er, there will 'e a ,iolation o! due process i! the
respondent Judge grants the application !or 'ail without hearing since @ection . o! ule
114 pro,ides that whate,er e,idence presented !or or against the accused0s pro,isional
release will 'e determined at the hearing.
"he practice '- trial court 8udges o! granting 'ail to the accused when the prosecutor
re!uses or !ails to present e,idence to pro,e that the e,idence o! guilt o! the accused is
strong can 'e traced to the case o! 1erras "eehan:ee ,. Birector o! 4risons
>>>i>2$93
where
this #ourt ga,e the !ollowing 7instructions7 to the 4eople0s #ourt,
>l2493
thus6
71+ In capital cases li:e the present when the prosecutor does not oppose
the petition !or release on 'ail, the court should, as a general rule, in the proper
e>ercise o! its discretion, grant the release a!ter the appro,al o! the 'ail which it
should !i> !or the purposeA
%+ But i! the court has reasons to 'elie,e that the special prosecutor0s
attitude is not 8usti!ied, it ma- as: him =uestions to ascertain the strength o! the
state0s e,idence or to 8udge the ade=uac- o! the amount o! 'ailA
$+ ?hen, howe,er, the special prosecutor re!uses to answer an-
particular =uestion on the ground that the answer ma- in,ol,e a disclosure
imperiling the success o! the prosecution or 8eopardi/ing the pu'lic interest, the
court ma- not compel him to do so, i! and when he e>hi'its a statement to that
e!!ect o! the @olicitor Deneral, who, as head o! the 5!!ice o! @pecial
4rosecutors, is ,ested with the direction and control o! the prosecution, and
ma- not, e,en at the trial, 'e ordered '- the court to present e,idence which he
does not want to introduce C pro,ided, o! course, that such re!usal shall not
pre8udice the rights o! the de!endant or detainee.7
>li2413
"he rationale !or the !irst instruction was stated '- this #ourt, as !ollows6
7I!, !or an- reason, an- part- should a'stain !rom introducing e,idence in
the case !or an- de!inite purpose, no law nor rule e>ists '- which he ma- 'e so
compelled and the court 'e!ore which the case is pending has to act without
that e,idence and, in so doing, it clearl- would not 'e !ailing in its duties. I! the
#onstitution or the law plots a certain course o! action to 'e ta:en '- the court
when certain e,idence is !ound '- it to e>ist, and the opposite course i! that
e,idence is wanting, and said e,idence is not ,oluntaril- adduced '- the proper
part-, the court0s clear dut- would 'e to adopt that course which has 'een
pro,ided !or in case o! a'sence o! such e,idence. Appl-ing the principle to the
case at 'ar, it was no more within the power C nor discretion C o! the court to
coerce the prosecution into presenting its e,idence than to !orce the prisoner
into adducing hers. And when 'oth elected not to do so, as the- had a per!ect
right to elect, the onl- thing remaining !or the court to do was to grant the
application !or 'ail.7
As !or the second instruction, this #ourt stated that6
7"he prosecutor might not oppose the application !or 'ail and
might re!use to satis!- his 'urden o! proo!, 'ut where the court has
reasons to 'elie,e that the prosecutor0s attitude is not 8usti!ied, as
when he is e,identl- committing a gross error or a dereliction o!
dut-, the court must possess a reasona'le degree o! control o,er
him in the paramount interest o! 8ustice. &nder such circumstance,
the court is authori/ed '- our second instruction to in=uire !rom the
prosecutor as to the nature o! his e,idence to determine whether or
not it is strong, it 'eing possi'le !or the prosecutor to ha,e erred in
considering it wea: and, there!ore, recommending 'ail.7
As !or the third instruction, this #ourt declared6
7It must 'e o'ser,ed that the court is made to rel- upon the
o!!icial statement o! the @olicitor Deneral on the =uestion o! whether
or not the re,elation o! e,idence ma- endanger the success o! the
prosecution and 8eopardi/e the pu'lic interest. "his is so, !or there is
no wa- !or the court to determine that =uestion without ha,ing the
e,idence disclosed in the presence o! the applicant, disclosure
which is sought to 'e a,oided to protect the interests o! the
prosecution 'e!ore the trial.7
It is to 'e recalled that 1erras "eehan:ee was decided !ull- hal! a centur- ago under
a completel- di!!erent !actual milieu. 1a-dee 1erras "eehan:ee was indicted under a law
dealing with treason cases and colla'oration with the enem-. "he said 7instructions7 gi,en
in the said case under the 1949 ules o! #ourt no longer appl- due to the amendments
introduced in the 19.5 ules o! #ourt.
In the 1949 ules o! #ourt o! the 4hilippines, the applica'le pro,isions on 7Bail7
pro,ides, as !ollows6
7@ec. 5. #apital o!!enses de!ined. C A capital o!!ense, as the term
is used in this rule, is an o!!ense which, under the law e>isting at the time o! its
commission, and at the time o! the application to 'e admitted to 'ail, ma- 'e
punished '- death.
@ec. ;. #apital o!!enses not 'aila'le. C )o person in custod- !or the
commission o! a capital o!!ense shall 'e admitted to 'ail i! the e,idence o! his
guilt is strong.
@ec. *. #apital o!!ense C Burden o! proo! . C 5n the hearing o! an
application !or admission to 'ail made '- an- person who is in custod- !or the
commission o! a capital o!!ense, the 'urden o! showing that the e,idence o!
guilt is strong is on the prosecution.
"he a'o,e-cited pro,isions ha,e not 'een adopted in toto in the 19.5 ules o!
#ourt, as amended '- Administrati,e #ircular )o. 1%-94, since some phrases and lines
ha,e 'een intercalated, as shown '- the underscored phrases and statements 'elow6
7@ec. ;. #apital o!!ense, de!ined. C A capital o!!ense, as the term
is used in these rules, is an o!!ense which, under the law e>isting at the time o!
its commission and at the time o! the application to 'e admitted to 'ail, ma- 'e
punished with death.
@ec. *. #apital o!!ense or an o!!ense punisha'le '- reclusion perpetua or
li!e imprisonment, not 'aila'le. C )o person charged with a capital o!!ense, o!
an o!!ense punisha'le '- reclusion perpetua or li!e imprisonment, when
e,idence o! guilt is strong, shall 'e admitted to 'ail regardless o! the stage o!
the criminal prosecution.
@ec. .. Burden o! proo! in 'ail application. C At the hearing o! an
application !or admission to 'ail !iled '- an- person who is in custod- !or the
commission o! an o!!ense punisha'le '- death, reclusion perpetua or li!e
imprisonment, the prosecution has the 'urden o! showing that e,idence o! guilt
is strong. Th$ $.&/$'c$ -r$1$'*$/ /)r&'% *h$ 0a&( h$ar&'%1 1ha(( 0$
co'1&/$r$/ a)*o2a*&ca((4 r$-ro/)c$/ a* *h$ *r&a(, 0)* )-o' 2o*&o' o6
$&*h$r -ar*4, *h$ co)r* 2a4 r$ca(( a'4 8&*'$11 6or a//&*&o'a( $9a2&'a*&o'
)'($11 *h$ 8&*'$11 &1 /$a/, o)*1&/$ o6 *h$ #h&(&--&'$1 or o*h$r8&1$ )'a0($
*o *$1*&64.:
It should 'e noted that there has 'een added in @ection . a crucial sentence not
!ound in the counterpart pro,ision, @ection *, ule 119 o! the 1949 ules o! #ourt. "he
a'o,e-underscored sentence in @ection ., ule 114 o! the 19.5 ules o! #ourt, as
amended, was added to address a situation where in case the prosecution does not
choose to present e,idence to oppose the application !or 'ail, the 8udge ma- !eel dut--
'ound to grant the 'ail application. In such a case, the 8udge ma- well lose control o! the
proceedings. In a sense, this undermines the authorit- o! a 8udge since all that the
prosecution has to do to 7!orce7 the 8udge to grant the 'ail application is to re!rain !rom
presenting e,idence opposing the same. In e!!ect, this situation ma:es @ections ; and * o!
the 1949 ules o! #ourt on 7Bail7 meaningless since whether or not the e,idence o! guilt
o! a person charged with a capital o!!ense is strong cannot 'e determined i! the
prosecution chooses not to present e,idence or oppose the 'ail application in a hearing
precisel- to 'e conducted '- the trial 8udge !or that purpose, as called !or in the two
sections. In the e,ent that the prosecution !ails or re!uses to adduce e,idence in the
scheduled hearing, then a hearing as in a regular trial should 'e scheduled. In this regard,
a hearing in the application !or 'ail necessaril- means presentation o! e,idence, and the
!iling o! a comment or a written opposition to the 'ail application '- the prosecution will not
su!!ice.
"he prosecution under the re,ised pro,ision is dut- 'ound to present e,idence in the
'ail hearing to pro,e whether the e,idence o! guilt o! the accused is strong and not merel-
to oppose the grant o! 'ail to the accused. 7"his also pre,ents the practice in the past
wherein a petition !or 'ail was used as a means to !orce the prosecution into a premature
re,elation o! its e,idence and, i! it re!used to do so, the accused would claim the grant o!
'ail on the ground that the e,idence o! guilt was not strong.7
>lii24%3
It should 'e stressed at this point, howe,er, that the nature o! the hearing in an
application !or 'ail must 'e e=uated with its purpose i.e., to determine the 'aila'ilit- o! the
accused. I! the prosecution were permitted to conduct a hearing !or 'ail as i! it were a !ull-
dress trial on the merits, the purpose o! the proceeding, which is to secure pro,isional
li'ert- o! the accused to ena'le him to prepare !or his de!ense, could 'e de!eated. At an-
rate, in case o! a summar- hearing, the prosecution witnesses could alwa-s 'e recalled at
the trial on the merits.
>liii24$3
In the light o! the applica'le rules on 'ail and the 8urisprudential principles 8ust
enunciated, this #ourt reiterates the duties o! the trial 8udge in case an application !or 'ail
is !iled6
(1+ )oti!- the prosecutor o! the hearing o! the application !or 'ail or
re=uire him to su'mit his recommendation (@ection 1., ule 114 o! the ules
o! #ourt as amended+A
(%+ #onduct a hearing o! the application !or 'ail regardless o! whether
or not the prosecution re!uses to present e,idence to show that the guilt o! the
accused is strong !or the purpose o! ena'ling the court to e>ercise its sound
discretion (@ections * and ., supra+A
($+ Becide whether the e,idence o! guilt o! the accused is strong
'ased on the summar- o! e,idence o! the prosecution (Ba-lon ,. @ison, supra+A
(4+ I! the guilt o! the accused is not strong, discharge the accused
upon the appro,al o! the 'ail'ond. (@ection 19, supra+. 5therwise, petition
should 'e denied.
"he a'o,e-enumerated procedure should now lea,e no room !or dou't as to the
duties o! the trial 8udge in cases o! 'ail applications. @o 'asic and !undamental is it to
conduct a hearing in connection with the grant o! 'ail in the proper cases that it would
amount to 8udicial apostas- !or an- mem'er o! the 8udiciar- to disclaim :nowledge or
awareness thereo!.
>li,2443
A 8udge owes it to the pu'lic and the administration o! 8ustice to
:now the law he is supposed to appl- to a gi,en contro,ers-. 1e is called upon to e>hi'it
more than 8ust a cursor- ac=uaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. "here will
'e !aith in the administration o! 8ustice onl- i! there 'e a 'elie! on the part o! litigants that
the occupants o! the 'ench cannot 8ustl- 'e accused o! a de!icienc- in their grasp o! legal
principles.
>l,2453
espondent 8udge herein insists that he could e>ercise his discretion in granting 'ail
to the accused since the Assistant 4rosecutor signi!ied in writing that he had no o'8ection
to the grant o! 'ail and recommended, instead, the 'ail'ond in the sum o! 4.9,999.99. It is
to 'e emphasi/ed that although the court ma- ha,e the discretion to grant the application
!or 'ail, in cases o! capital o!!enses, the determination as to whether or not the e,idence
o! guilt is strong can onl- 'e reached a!ter due hearing which, in this particular instance
has not 'een su'stantiall- complied with '- the respondent Judge.
?hile it ma- 'e true that the respondent 8udge set the application !or 'ail !or hearing
three times, thus showing lac: o! malice or 'ad !aith in granting 'ail to the accused,
nonetheless, this does not completel- e>culpate him 'ecause the !act remains that a
hearing has not actuall- 'een conducted in ,iolation o! his dut- to determine whether or
not the e,idence against the accused is strong !or purposes o! 'ail. )ormall-, the #ourt
imposes a penalt- o! 4%9,999.99 !ine in cases where the 8udge grants the application !or
'ail without notice and hearing. In ,iew howe,er o! the circumstances o! this case, a
reprimand instead o! the 4%9,999.99 would su!!ice.
;"ERE3ORE, in ,iew o! the !oregoing, respondent Judge Leo M. apatalo, "#,
Branch $%, Agoo, La &nion, is here'- RE#RIMANDED with the ;ARNIN that a
repetition o! the same or similar acts in the !uture will 'e dealt with more se,erel-.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxxix
xl
xli
xlii
xliii
xliv
xlv