Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-99 November 16, 1945

PIO DURAN, Petitioner,

vs.
SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, Judge of People's Court, Respondent.

JARANILLA, J.:

FACTS:

The petitioner, Pio Duran, is an allegedly Filipino political prisoner who is detained in the
New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, for not less than three (3) months, under the custody of the
Director of Prison without any cases filed against him. He then filed a petition for writ for habeas
corpus with the People’s Court on the 4th of October 1945. The said petition was with
allegations and prayer for a provisional release on bail bond in the event that his absolute
freedom would be denied.

On October 6 of the same year, the Solicitor General submitted a recommendation to the
People’s Court that Pio Duran be allowed to post bail in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand
Pesos (Php 35,000) and be provisionally released. However, he would still be subject to hearing
so that the Court would be able to direct if his case is bailable or not, and to further know the
right amount of bond to be paid.

During the hearing, Special Prosecutor V.D Carpio, who represents the Solicitor General,
manifested that he was not free to divulge their evidence against the petitioner considering that
those are confidential for it consists of documentary proofs received by the Office of Special
Prosecutors from the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC). However, he still recited charges against
the petitioner, manifesting that those were stated by the respondent, Judge Salvador Abad Santos,
in his answer to the petition.

Judge Salvador Abad Santos then issued an order on the 12th of October wherein he
denied the petition for provisional release on bail of Pio Duran. Further, the respondent judge did
not state any reason for denying the Motion for Reconsideration on October 15.

After the petitioner received a copy of the said order, he immediately filed a Motion for
Reconsideration based on three (3) grounds, namely: (a) that the Solicitor General recommended
that petition be granted upon on a bail of P35,000; (b) that the Solicitor General did not reveal
any evidence against the petitioner; (c) that refusal to disclose such evidence entitled petitioner to
bail; and that on October 15 the motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion for denying the
petitioner’s petition to bail?

RULING:

No. The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretionary power because it
is constitutional and legal. The petition was denied since as pursuant to Sec. 19 of
Commonwealth Act No. “…Provided, however, That existing provisions of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, the aforesaid political prisoners may, in the discretion of the People's Court,
after due notice to the Office of the Special Prosecutors and hearing, be released on bail, even
prior to the presentation of the corresponding information, unless the Court finds that there is
strong evidence of the Commission of a capital offense…”

The above quoted supports the conclusion and ruling of the People’s Court of the recital
of Special Prosecutor V.D Carpio of the charges against the petitioner stated by the respondent
judge in his answer to the petition; the same charges not rebutted by counsel for the petitioner
during the petition for bail.

At the case at bar, petitioner, Pio Duran, having been charged with treason which is also
considered as age highest of all crimes, struggled to prove his right to bail and led to his belief
that he was deprived of his liberty without due process of the law.

The petitioner cannot say that he has been deprived of his liberty without due process of
the law because his case had still been subject to hearing wherein he was given an opportunity to
be heard even though it was clear that he was detained due to highly treasonable activities
against the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the United States. Said activities having strong
evidence would be charged for capital offense on the Information and are punishable by death.
Therefore the People’s Court finding the petition without merit, dismissing the same.