Villaseor vs. Abano No. L-23599.

September 29, 1967 Facts: A criminal case filed at the CFI of Marinduque for the murder of Boac police sergeant Alfonso Madia, lodged by the Provincial Fiscal against petitioner. Petitioner, on motion, was admitted to a P60,000.00-bail. The amount of the bond was, on verbal representation of Petitioners wife, reduced to P40,000.00. Petitioner posted a property bond, was set at provisional liberty. Before arraignment on the murder charge, however, respondent Provincial Fiscal amended the information. This time he accused petitioner with Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Murder. Respondent judge sua sponte cancelled petitioners bond, ordered his immediate arrest. On petitioners motion to reconsider, respondent judge, after hearing, resolved to admit him to bail provided he puts up a cash bond of P60,000.00. On petitioners motion that the original bond previously given be reinstated, respondent judge resolved to fix the bond anew in real property in the amount of P60,000.00, but to be posted only by residents of the province of Marinduque actually staying therein with properties which must be in the possession and ownership of said residents for five years. Petitioner came to this Court on certiorari, with a prayer for preliminary injunction. He seeks to set aside respondent judges orders; to reinstate the bail bond theretofore approved by earlier by respondent judge. Issue: WON respondent judge acted without any or in excess of his jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, and with violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Court in issuing the disputed orders. Held: Along with the courts power to grant bail in bailable eases is its discretion to fix the amount thereof, and, as stated, to increase or reduce the same. The question of whether bail is excessive lays with the court to determine. In the matter of bail fixing, courts perforce are to be guided at all times by the purpose for which bail is required. The definition of bail in Section 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court, gives this purpose the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance. So it is, that experience has brought forth certain guidelines in bail fixing, which may be summarized as follows: (1) ability of the accused to give bail; (2) nature of the offense; (3) penalty for the offense charged; (4) character and reputation of the accused; (5) health of the accused; (6) character and strength of the evidence; (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial; (8) forfeiture of other bonds; (9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (10) if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases. Here, petitioner is charged with a capital offense, direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority with murder. A complex crime, it may call for the imposition of capital punishment. Exacting serious consideration is that portion of the disputed order of September 15, 1964, where respondent judge requires of the property bond be posted only by residents of the province of Marinduque actually staying therein. Section 9, Rule 114, Rules of Court, which in part recites: SEC. 9. Qualification of sureties.The necessary qualifications of sureties to a bail bond shall be as follows: Each of them must be a resident householder or freeholder within the Philippines. Where the respondent Judge required that the property bond be posted only by residents of the province of Marinduque actually staying therein, in apparent collision with Sec. 9

of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which provides that each of the sureties must be a resident householder or freeholder within the Philippines, we read this directive to mean that it is but a minimum requirement. It is not intended to tie up the hands of a Judge to approve bail so long as it is offered by a resident householder or freeholder within the Philippines. It is to be treated as cumulative, rather than exclusive, of the inherent power of the courts to determine whether bail proffered should be accepted, for, in principle, a court has broad powers essential to its judicial function. And where petitioner failed to aver that the requirement that his bondsmen be actual residents of the province would cause him prejudice, such failure weighs heavily against him as it is not shown that, if error there was on the part of the respondent Judge, it was a prejudicial error calling for correction. Borinaga vs. Tamin A.M. No. RTJ-93-936. September 10, 1993 Facts: In a complaint filed by Albina Borinaga, respondent Judge Camilo Tamin of the RTC of Zamboanga del Sur, was charged with grave incompetence and ignorance of the law in connection with Criminal Case for murder entitled People vs. Antonio Ruaya, et al. The records show that an amended criminal complaint for murder for the killing of complainants husband, Regino Borinaga, was filed against Antonio Ruaya, Roberto Rada, Edwin Rada, and Jojo Valenzuela before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, for preliminary investigation. While the case was pending, a petition for bail was filed by one of the accused, Antonio Ruaya, before respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin of the RTC. Accused Ruaya averred that he was a detention prisoner; that he was charged with murder; that no bail was fixed by the investigating judge who issued a warrant of arrest against him; and that the evidence of guilt against him was not strong, hence he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. Accused Ruaya prayed that the bail be fixed at P20,000.00. At the scheduled hearing, the public prosecutor failed to appear, by reason of which respondent judge issued an order granting bail to accused Ruaya in the amount of P20,000.00. The public prosecutor, together with complainants counsel, filed a Motion to Cancel Bailbond and to Arrest the Accused, on the ground that said accused is charged with a capital offense, the evidence of guilt is strong, and no bail was recommended in the information. However, respondent judge issued an order denying said motion without conducting a hearing thereon. Issue: WON respondent judge is guilty of grave incompetence and ignorance of the law in granting bail to the accused. Held: Bad is a matter of discretion where the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong. The petition for bail was granted by respondent judge on the simple reason that the prosecution failed to appear and present evidence despite due notice. Forthwith, he concludes that by reason of the failure of the prosecution to appear at the scheduled hearing, the applicant is entitled to bail as a matter of right. He aggravated this flagrant error when in his aforequoted comment, he justified his subsequent denial of the prosecutions motion for the cancellation of the bail bond and the arrest of the accused on the incredible theory that the prosecutions failure to appear was a waiver on its part x

x x and it is allegedly already in estoppel to challenge the grant of bail since that right to bail became irrevocably vested in the accused who had thereby acquired a vested constitutional right beyond the power and authority of the respondent to recall. In the first place, respondent judge did not have the authority to set the petition for bail for hearing in view of the fact that he had not even acquired jurisdiction over the criminal cse since the information therefor had not yet been filed in the trial court. In doing so, he acted with grave abuse of discretion and in wanton disregard of established rules and jurisprudence. Secondly, it has been held that even where the prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such questions as would ascertain the strength of the evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount of bail. Respondent jusdge was fined and sternly warned. Cruz vs. Yaneza Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-99-1175. March 9, 1999 Facts: RAFFY TULFO of Radio DZXL furnished the Office of the Court Administrator with a copy of the unsworn letter-complaint of a certain Victorino Cruz, complainant against respondent JUDGE REYNOLD YANEZA of MeTC Navotas. Cruz complained of the alleged irregular approval of bail bonds and issuance of release orders by Judge Yaneza in violation of Sec. 17, Rule 114, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The OCA referred the letter-complaint to Judge Benjamin Aquino, Jr. of RTC Malabon, with instructions to conduct a discreet investigation. In a Report Judge Aquino confirmed that Judge Yaneza had been improperly approving bail bonds and irregularly issuing release orders for accused whose cases were pending outside of his jurisdiction. The accused had already been convicted in criminal cases pending before Executive Judge Aquino but because of the bail bond approved and the order issued by Judge Yaneza, the accused was released. Judge Yaneza admits having approved bail bonds posted by the accused who were detained outside of Navotas and whose cases were pending in courts outside of his jurisdiction. Nevertheless, according to him, he approved the bail bonds and issued corresponding release orders in good faith and not for any pecuniary consideration. The OCA then recommended that an investigation on the bonding companies that usually flocked the sala of respondent Judge be conducted and Judge Yaneza be immediately dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and privileges with prejudice to reinstatement or reemployment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. Issue: WON respondent judge violated the rules on bail as set forth in the Rules on Criminal Procedure when he granted bail to several accused in various criminal cases.\ Held: Judge Yaneza cannot seek refuge in Sec. 35 of BP Blg. 129 which grants authority to any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge and Municipal Circuit Trial Judge to hear and decide applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judge sits. Neither can he take shelter under the provisions of Sec. 19 of Rule 114. Section 35 of BP Blg. 129 and Secs. 17 and 19 of Rule 114 are to be construed and applied in conjunction with each other. The abovecited rules do not give the Metropolitan Trial Judge blanket authority to grant applications for bail. There are prerequisites to be complied with. First, the application for

bail must be filed in the court where the case is pending. In the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, the application for bail may be filed with another branch of the same court within the province or city. Second, if the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may be filed with any regional trial court of the place. If no judge thereof is available, then with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein. The documents presented before this Court in the instant administrative case are manifest testimonies of the glaring errors committed by respondent Judge. He approved bail applications for cases not pending before his sala. The accused were not arrested in places within his territorial jurisdiction. Neither did he attempt to show the unavailability of the other regional trial court judges who have the priority in terms of hearing the bail applications. People vs. Raba No. L-10724. April 21, 1958 Facts: Clemente Talantor and Melquiades Raba were charged with murder before the CFI of Antique and the bail for each was fixed by the court at P30,000 as recommended by the provincial fiscal. After the arraignment of the accused at which both pleaded not guilty to the charge, Talantor filed with the court an urgent motion praying that the amount of the bond fixed for his provisional liberty be reduced from P30,000 to P14,000 in order to enable him to go on bail. While the motion setting the hearing thereof contains a notification to the provincial fiscal, however, the latter was actually notified at 9:40 o'clock in the morning of the same day. Despite this lack of due notice, the court promptly granted the motion for the reduction of bail one hour later. Thereafter provincial fiscal presented a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the reduction of the bail to P14,000 on the ground that it is irregular because no proper notice of the hearing of the motion for such reduction was given to him as required by the rule to enable him to prove that there exists strong evidence which would warrant the denial of the motion. The motion was denied, hence this appeal. Issue: WON the trial court irregulary reduced the amount of bail. Held: The Rules of Court make it a duty of a movant to serve notice of his motion on all parties concerned at least three days before the hearing thereof (section 4, Rule 26). This requirement is more imperative in a criminal case where a person is accused of a capital offense for in such a case admission to bail is a matter of discretion which can only be exercised after the fiscal has been heard regarding the nature of the evidence he has in his possession. Thus, it is provided that "When admission to bail is a matter of discretion the court must require that reasonable notice of the hearing of the application for bail be given to the fiscal" (section 8, Rule 110), and such notice is necessary because "the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the prosecution" (section 7, Rule 110). Here Talantor is charged with a capital offense and while could not be granted without hearing him because the evidence in his possession may not warrant it. It has been held that "The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion. This discretion, by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing Considering that Talantor did not serve notice of his motion to reduce bail on the provincial fiscal at least three days before the hearing thereof and

the court failed to require that a reasonable notice thereof be given to said fiscal, it is evident that the court acted improperly in reducing the bail without giving the fiscal an opportunity to be heard.