Caspe vs Bugtas

Facts:

information for murder was filed presided by Judge Paterno T. Alvarez. The latter allegedly granted a
P60,000.00 bailbond each to both accused without conducting a hearing, and while the two were at
large. respondent Judge Bugtas who later handled the case issued a Resolution granting the motion for
reconsideration on the basis of a previous order granting bail to the accused.

Issue:

Whether or not the grant of bail was proper?

Ruling:

No. The refusal or failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence or to interpose objection to a petition
for bail will not dispense with the conduct of a bail hearing. 1 Neither may reliance to a previous order
granting bail justify the absence of a hearing in a subsequent petition for bail, 2 more so where said order
relied upon was issued without hearing and while the accused was at large.

In the instant case, it appears that when the respondent judge initially granted the prosecutions motion
praying that the accused be denied bail, no hearing was conducted. Irrespective of his opinion on the
strength or weakness of evidence of the accuseds guilt, he should have conducted a hearing and
thereafter made a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. The importance of a bail hearing and a
summary of evidence cannot be downplayed, these are considered aspects of procedural due process
for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail.

People vs Gako

Facts:

 Rafael Galan, Sr. was shot dead and an Information was filed against the three accused namely,
de la Peña, Herodias and Go, charging them with the murder of Galan.
 Judge  Jacinto, then the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, issued a
Warrant of Arrest against the accused.
 An Urgent Motion to confine Go in a hospital was thereafter filed which was later on granted.
 Judge Agana sustained the objections of the defense counsels each time that the prosecution
attempted to establish the conspiracy to kill the victim.
 The prosecution filed a motion to inhibit Judge Agana, which motion was denied.
 Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Order of Dismissal, ordered the inhibition of Judge
Agana, and ordered the raffle of the case to another branch.
 With the dismissal of the appeal of Go and Herodias, the case was re-raffled and an Alias
Warrant of Arrest was issued against Go and Herodias.
 The physician of Go, filed a Clinical Summary on the illness of Go and, to which Go filed a
Petition for Bail.
 The case was finally assigned to Branch 5 with Judge Gako, Jr. as presiding judge.
 An Urgent Motion to Enforce the Alias Warrant of Arrest was filed praying for the arrest of Go
first before his Clinical Summary Report could be heard.
  Judge Gako, Jr. issued an Order granting the Petition for Bail of Go.
 prosecution filed a Vehement Motion to Inhibit Judge Gako, Jr. due to his alleged delay in
resolving the incidents in connection with the arrest of Go.
 Prosecution moved for the reconsideration of order which granted bail to Go.
 Judge Gako, Jr. thereafter issued an Order denying the: (1) Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order which granted the Bail of Go (2) Motion to Inhibit; and (3) Supplemental Motion to Inhibit
the Presiding Judge. 

 Issue:

Whether or not the order to grand bail was proper?

Ruling:

No. when bail is discretionary, a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court,
should first be conducted to determine the existence of strong evidence or lack of it, against the accused
to enable the judge to make an intelligent assessment of the evidence presented by the parties. 16 A
summary hearing is defined as "such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence
of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the
weight of evidence for the purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court does not sit to try the merits or
to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against
the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be therein
offered and admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court which may confine
itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary
examination and cross examination

Another compelling reason why a hearing of a petition for bail is necessary is to determine the amount
of bail based on the guidelines set forth in Section 6, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. 19 Without the
required hearing, the bail granted to accused Go in the amount of P 50,000.00 is undoubtedly arbitrary
and without basis.

Second, the order granting bail issued by Judge Gako, Jr. merely made a conclusion without a summary
of the evidence, a substantive and formal defect that voids the grant of bail. Well settled is the rule that
after the hearing, whether the bail is granted or denied, the presiding judge is mandated to prepare a
summary of the evidence for the prosecution. A summary is defined as "a comprehensive and usually
brief abstract or digest of a text or statement". 20 Based on the summary of evidence, the judge
formulates his own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the
accused. The importance of a summary cannot be downplayed, it is considered an aspect of procedural
due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of
bail

A.M. No.MTJ-97-1139     October 16, 1997

ROBERTO ESPIRITU vs. JUDGE EDUARDO JOVELLANOS, respondent.

FACTS:
While Roberto Espiritu was with a group of people, Weny Dumlao approached him and fired at him
three times, which resulted to his wounds. On the basis of this and his companion’s affidavits, SPO II
Eduardo R. Yadao filed a criminal complaint for frustrated murder in MCTC Pangasinan. After conducting
a preliminary examination, Judge Jovellanos ordered the arrest of Dumlao and fixed the amount of bail
for his provisional liberty at P20,000.00, which was later reduced to P10,000.00, stating that Dumlao’s
father had asked for the reduction. Later, the Judge ordered “any peace officer under whose custody
[Dumlao] may be found” to release the latter in view of the fact that Dumlao had posted bail for
P10,000.00. Thereafter, the Judge also ordered Dumlao to be released due to the fact that Dumlao had
filed a case against Roberto Espiritu and others as a result of the same incident, charging Espiritu and his
companions with a case for attempted murder and illegal possession of firearm. Espiritu sought a review
in the Department of Justice, but his petition was denied for having been filed late hence he filed the
complaint in this present case, alleging irregularities committed by respondent judge in the granting of
bail and the conduct of the preliminary investigation of his complaint against Dumlao.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the granting of bail while Dumlao was not in the custody of the court and its reduction
proper.

HELD:
Judge Jovellano correctly granted bail to Dumlao because he may be considered to be under
constructive custody at the time when he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court when he
personally asked respondent judge to admit him to bail and reduce its amount. We held that the
accused was in the constructive custody of the law when he moved for admission to bail through his
lawyers (1) by filing the application for bail with the trial court, (2) by furnishing true information of his
actual whereabouts, and (3) by unequivocably recognizing the jurisdiction of said court.

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the Philippine

Department of Justice, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.
Facts:
Private respondent Muñoz was charged before Hong Kong Court. Warrants of arrest were issued and by
virtue of a final decree the validity of the Order of Arrest was upheld. The petitioner Hong Kong
Administrative Region filed a petition for the extradition of the private respondent. In the same case, a
petition for bail was filed by the private respondent.

The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was no Philippine law granting the same in
extradition cases and that the respondent was a high “flight risk”. Private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration and was granted by the respondent judge subject to the following conditions:

1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the condition that accused hereby undertakes that he will
appear and answer the issues raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to
orders and processes of this Court, will further appear for judgment. If accused fails in this undertaking,
the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the government;

2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court;

3. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and discretion of filing its own motion for hold
departure order before this Court even in extradition proceeding; and
4. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire to
the nearest office, at any time and day of the week; and if they further desire, manifest before this Court
to require that all the assets of accused, real and personal, be filed with this Court soonest, with the
condition that if the accused flees from his undertaking, said assets be forfeited in favor of the
government and that the corresponding lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly.

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the said order but was denied by the respondent judge. Hence, this
instant petition.

Issue
Whether or not a potential extraditee is entitled to post bail

Ruling
A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.

Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory
law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal
proceedings.

On the other hand, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of
Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a
prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty.

In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in Government of United States of America v. Hon.
Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario
Batacan Crespo GR No. 153675 April 2007, that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to
extradition proceedings, the same being available only in criminal proceedings. The Court took
cognizance of the following trends in international law:

(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international;

(2) the higher value now being given to human rights;

(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty
obligations; and

(4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one
hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.

In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the
individual and the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the ruling in Purganan, and held
that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail.

Share this:

 Email