People vs.

Judge Donato
G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991

Facts:

Private respondent and his co-accused were charged of rebellion. Private respondent filed with
a Motion to Quash alleging that: (a) the facts alleged do not constitute an offense; (b) the Court
has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons
of the defendants; and (d) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished. This was
denied.

May 9, 1987 private respondent filed a petition for bail, which was opposed that the respondent
is not entitled to bail anymore since rebellion became a capital offense under PD 1996, 942 and
1834 amending ART. 135 of RPC. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No.
187 repealing, among others, P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and
effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees.
Respondent Judge Donato, taking in consideratopm of E.O. No. 187, granted the bail with a
condition that he shall report to the court once every two months within the first ten days of
every period thereof.

Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, asking the court to deny bail to the
private respondent, claiming that in case he will be released he will not appear in court for trial.
They contended: 1) The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an
escapee from detention when arrested; 2) He was not arrested at his residence as he had no
known address; 3) He was using the false name "Manuel Mercado Castro" at the time of his
arrest and presented a Driver's License to substantiate his false identity; 4) The address he
gave "Panamitan, Kawit, Cavite," turned out to be also a false address; 5) He and his
companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and address
were also found to be false; and 6) Pursuant to Ministry Order No. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 ,
a reward of P250,000.00 was offered and paid for his arrest. The supplemental motion for
reconsideration was denied. Hence the appeal.

Issue:
Whether or Not the private respondent has the right to bail.

Held:

Yes. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital
offense, therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence. It is only when it is a capital
offense that the right becomes discretionary. However it was wrong for the Judge to change the
amount of bail from 30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution.

Republic Act No. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990, providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua
to the crime of rebellion, is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him.
The court, however, agree with the petitioner that the accused has validly waived his right to bail
in another case, as agreement for remaining under custody, his co detainees will be released
immediately. It ruled that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be
waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to
law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a
right recognized by law. The respondent Judge then clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion
in granting bail to the private respondent.