Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
AM No. RTJ-94-1183, February 6, 1995
AM No. RTJ-94-1183, February 6, 1995
FACTS:
This administrative case arose from an anonymous letter-complaint.
Alfredo Gatus y Tiamzon was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in five (5) separate Information, before the sala of respondent Judge Elma. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
In the Information for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, no bail bond was recommended.
Alfredo Gatus y Tiamzon was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in five (5) separate Information, before the sala of respondent Judge Elma. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
In the Information for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, no bail bond was recommended.
Accused Gatus filed a motion to fix his bail at P60,000.00.
Respondent judge, instead of setting the application for hearing, directed the prosecution to file its Comment or Opposition to accused's Motion to Fix Bail. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
Respondent judge, instead of setting the application for hearing, directed the prosecution to file its Comment or Opposition to accused's Motion to Fix Bail. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
The prosecution submitted its Comment, to wit:
However, considering that the case is now within the Honorable Court, we submit the instant Petition for (sic) its sound discretion. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
- That based on the record of this case, it appears that a preliminary investigation was conducted;
- That the investigating prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation (did not) recommend (any) bail for said offense;
- That undersigned still maintains the findings of the investigating Prosecutor.
However, considering that the case is now within the Honorable Court, we submit the instant Petition for (sic) its sound discretion. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
In an Order, respondent judge set the accused bail at P100,000.00.
Respondent judge approved the P100,000.00 bail posted by the accused.
Considering the complaint, the Court required respondent judge to file his Comment.
In his Comment, respondent judge admits that he failed to conduct a formal hearing prior to his grant of accused Gatus' application for bail. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
He, however, maintains that in ordering the prosecution to comment on accused's motion to fix bail, he has substantially complied with the requirement of a formal hearing.
He further claims that he required the prosecution to adduce evidence but the latter refused and left the determination of the motion to his discretion. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
He, however, maintains that in ordering the prosecution to comment on accused's motion to fix bail, he has substantially complied with the requirement of a formal hearing.
He further claims that he required the prosecution to adduce evidence but the latter refused and left the determination of the motion to his discretion. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
ISSUE:
Whether or not a summary hearing is required to grant bail.
HELD:
Yes. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
The Constitution guarantees to every person under legal custody the right to bail, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
The Constitution guarantees to every person under legal custody the right to bail, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
Section 13, Article III, 1987 Constitution - All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.The Rules likewise mandates that before ruling on an application for bail, a hearing should first be conducted to determine the existence of strong evidence against the accused. (Section 5, Rule 114) Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
It is a rule of long standing that bail is not a matter of right in cases involving capital offenses or where the offenses for which the accused stands charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
It is true that the weight of the evidence adduced is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
However, such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty.
It is true that the weight of the evidence adduced is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
However, such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty.
In the case at bench, however, no formal hearing was conducted by respondent judge. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
He could have not assessed the weight of the evidence against accused Gatus before granting the latter's application for bail.
He could have not assessed the weight of the evidence against accused Gatus before granting the latter's application for bail.
Summary hearing is "such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is to determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail." Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
In receiving evidence on bail, it is true that the court is not required to try the merits of the case nor is it called to speculate on the outcome of the trial.
Nonetheless, hearing of the application cannot be totally dispensed with. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma
In receiving evidence on bail, it is true that the court is not required to try the merits of the case nor is it called to speculate on the outcome of the trial.
Nonetheless, hearing of the application cannot be totally dispensed with. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma