309. Magsucang v. Judge Balgos neither Rosalie nor her father can afford the bail.
This lead to
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1427. February 27, 2003
TOPIC: Excessive Bail
Summary:
This case is a letter-complaint addressed to the
Secretary of Interior and Local Government alleging that the
respondent judge erred in requiring the payment of excessive
bail. The Court found merit in the said allegation because the
Judge failed to consider the financial capability of the accused,
her illiteracy, and the fact that she is a daughter of a poor
fisherman. Thus leading to him fixing an excessive bail.
Doctrine:
The judge must first consider the following before
fixing the bail: (a) financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) nature and circumstances of the offense; (c) penalty for the
offense charged; (d) character and reputation of the accused;
(e) age and health of the accused; (f) weight of the evidence
against the accused; (g) probability of the accused appearing at
the trial; (h) forfeiture of other bail; (i) the fact that the accused
was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (j) pendency of
other cases where the accused is on bail.
Facts:
On May 10, 2000 Pepito Lim, the owner of Ace Fishing
Corporation, filed a criminal complaint of qualified theft
against Rosalie Magsucang, the daughter of the complainant,
this case resulted to the accused paying Php 30,000.00 as bail.
This forced the family to sell their banca and borrow money
from friends. However, Rosalie again faced 7 more cases one
of which required her to pay Php 24,000.00 as bail. However
her continuous incarceration.
Relevant Issue:
Did the judge required excessive bail?
Ruling: YES
Ratio:
The complainants contention is impressed with merit.
The respondent judge did require an excessive bail and failed
to apply the guidelines set by the Court which requires the
judge to first consider the following before fixing the bail: (a)
financial ability of the accused to give bail; (b) nature and
circumstances of the offense; (c) penalty for the offense
charged; (d) character and reputation of the accused; (e) age
and health of the accused; (f) weight of the evidence against
the accused; (g) probability of the accused appearing at the
trial; (h) forfeiture of other bail; (i) the fact that the accused
was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (j) pendency of
other cases where the accused is on bail. It is also important to
note the governing principle in setting the bail: “the amount
should be high enough to assure the presence of defendant
when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to
fulfil this purpose.”
In the case at bar the judge failed to appreciate that the
accused was illiterate, the daughter of a poor fisherman and has
a limited capability to post bail. Had he applied the guidelines
he would have arrived in more reasonable amount. The Judge’s
error resulted to the denial of the accused’s right to bail as
provided under the Constitution thus the judge must be
penalised.