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
Tucay vs. Domagas
AM No. RTJ-95-1286, March 2 1995
FACTS:
Ludovico Ellamil, Bernardo Ellamil and Melchor Ellamil are accused of murder.
Teresita Tucay, the wife of the victim, is the complainant.
A petition for bail was filed on behalf of the accused Bernardo Ellamil. Tucay vs. Domagas
The petition was denied by respondent judge on the ground that it did not bear the conformity of the provincial prosecutor.
Teresita Tucay, the wife of the victim, is the complainant.
A petition for bail was filed on behalf of the accused Bernardo Ellamil. Tucay vs. Domagas
The petition was denied by respondent judge on the ground that it did not bear the conformity of the provincial prosecutor.
A second petition for bail was filed by the accused with the prayer that he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P50,000.00. Tucay vs. Domagas
This time, the petition contained the notation "No objection" of Provincial Prosecutor Jose Antonio Guillermo.
Without holding a hearing to determine whether the evidence of the prosecution was strong, respondent judge issued an order on the same day, in which he granted bail and directed the release of accused from detention. Tucay vs. Domagas
Read: Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
This time, the petition contained the notation "No objection" of Provincial Prosecutor Jose Antonio Guillermo.
Without holding a hearing to determine whether the evidence of the prosecution was strong, respondent judge issued an order on the same day, in which he granted bail and directed the release of accused from detention. Tucay vs. Domagas
Read: Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
The present complaint was filed, protesting the grant of bail without hearing and without notice to trial fiscal, Atty. Tita Villarin, of the Provincial Prosecutor's recommendation for approval of the bond.
It is alleged that the assessed value of the property given as bond is only P47,330.00, and, therefore, is short of the amount fixed for the release of the accused. Tucay vs. Domagas
It is alleged that the assessed value of the property given as bond is only P47,330.00, and, therefore, is short of the amount fixed for the release of the accused. Tucay vs. Domagas
Complainant alleged that respondent judge required the accused, Bernardo Ellamil, to post an additional bond only after she had pointed out the deficiency of the original property bond.
She further alleged that the provincial prosecutor recommended no bail, despite the fact that MCTC Judge Rodrigo Nabor who, had ordered the arrest of the accused after a preliminary investigation, had fixed no bail for his temporary release. Tucay vs. Domagas
She further alleged that the provincial prosecutor recommended no bail, despite the fact that MCTC Judge Rodrigo Nabor who, had ordered the arrest of the accused after a preliminary investigation, had fixed no bail for his temporary release. Tucay vs. Domagas
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to which the letter-complaint was sent, finds the respondent judge grossly ignorant of the law in granting bail without a hearing in a criminal case involving a capital offense and recommends that he be fined and given a stern warning.
It likewise points out that, in his order releasing the accused on bail, the judge did not state that he was granting the petition for bail but simply ordered him released. Tucay vs. Domagas
It likewise points out that, in his order releasing the accused on bail, the judge did not state that he was granting the petition for bail but simply ordered him released. Tucay vs. Domagas
ISSUE:
Whether or not a hearing is required for posting additional bond. Tucay vs. Domagas
HELD:
Yes.
We agree with the foregoing observations of the OCA.
We wish to add that, although the Provincial Prosecutor had interposed no objection to the grant of bail to the accused, respondent judge should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from the prosecution whether the latter was not really contesting the bail application. Tucay vs. Domagas
Read: Feliciano vs. Pasicolan
He should have called a hearing for the additional reason of taking into account the guidelines in Rule 114, Sec. 6 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, in fixing the amount of the bail.
It turned out that the property given as security for the bond had a market value of only P42,940.
Although it appears that an additional bond was later posted, this was done only after the complainant had objected to the bond. In failing to observe these rudimentary requirements, the respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law for which he should be fined. Tucay vs. Domagas
We agree with the foregoing observations of the OCA.
We wish to add that, although the Provincial Prosecutor had interposed no objection to the grant of bail to the accused, respondent judge should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from the prosecution whether the latter was not really contesting the bail application. Tucay vs. Domagas
Read: Feliciano vs. Pasicolan
He should have called a hearing for the additional reason of taking into account the guidelines in Rule 114, Sec. 6 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, in fixing the amount of the bail.
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Rule 114, Section 6.As it is, the respondent judge simply fixed the amount of bail at P50,000 and ordered the release of the accused. Tucay vs. Domagas
Amount of bail; guidelines.
The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to the following guidelines:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty of the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) The weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
It turned out that the property given as security for the bond had a market value of only P42,940.
Although it appears that an additional bond was later posted, this was done only after the complainant had objected to the bond. In failing to observe these rudimentary requirements, the respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law for which he should be fined. Tucay vs. Domagas