8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

1/8

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335 March 5, 1997

INOCENCIO BASCO, complainant,vs.JUDGE EO M. RAPATA O, R!"#o$a% Tr#a% Co&r', Bra$ch 3(, A"oo, aU$#o$, respon ent.

R E S O ! " # I O N

ROMERO, J.:

In a s$orn letter%complaint ate &u'ust (), (**+, complainant Inocencio ascochar'e respon ent -u 'e !eo M. Rapatalo of R#C, ranch /, &'oo, !a "nion $ith'ross i'norance or $illful isre'ar of establishe rule of la$ for 'rantin' bail to anaccuse in a mur er case 0Criminal Case No. /*/12 $ithout receivin' evi ence ancon uctin' a hearin'.

Complainant, $ho is the father of the victim, alle'e that an information for mur er$as file a'ainst a certain Ro'er Morente, one of three accuse . #he accuseMorente file a petition for bail. #he hearin' for sai petition $as set for Ma3 (,(**+ b3 petitioner but $as not hear since the respon ent -u 'e $as then on leave.It $as reset to -une 4, (**+ but on sai ate, respon ent -u 'e reset it to -une //,

(**+. #he hearin' for -une //, (**+, ho$ever, i not materiali5e. Instea , theaccuse $as arrai'ne an trial $as set. &'ain, the petition for bail $as not hear onsai ate as the prosecution6s $itnesses in connection $ith sai petition $ere notnotifie . &nother attempt $as ma e to reset the hearin' to -ul3 (1, (**+.

In the meantime, complainant alle'e l3 sa$ the accuse in Rosario, !a "nion on-ul3 , (**+. 7e later learne that the accuse $as out on bail espite the fact thatthe petition ha not been hear at all. "pon investi'ation, complainant iscoverethat bail ha been 'rante an a release or er ate -une /*, (**+ 1 $as issue onthe basis of a mar'inal note ( ate -une //, (**+, at the bottom of the bail petitionb3 &ssistant Prosecutor Manuel Oliva $hich state 8 9No ob:ection8 P4;,;;;.;;,9si'ne an approve b3 the assistant prosecutor an eventuall3 b3 respon ent-u 'e. Note that there $as alrea 3 a release or er ate -une /*, (**+ on the basis

of the mar'inal note of the &ssistant Prosecutor ate -une //, (**+ 0$hen thehearin' of the petition for bail $as aborte an instea arrai'nment too< place2 $henanother hearin' $as sche ule for -ul3 (1, (**+.

In his comment ate October (=, (**+, respon ent -u 'e alle'e that he 'rantethe petition base on the prosecutor6s option not to oppose the petition as $ell as thelatter6s recommen ation settin' the bailbon in the amount of P4;,;;;.;;. 7eaverre that $hen the prosecution chose not to oppose the petition for bail, he ha

the iscretion on $hether to approve it or not. 7e further eclare that $hen heapprove the petition, he ha a ri'ht to presume that the prosecutor

8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

2/8

8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

3/8

0=2Pico v . $ombong, Jr . eci e in (**/. 17 %n this administrative case, therespondent #udge granted bail to an accused charged with an offense punishable byreclusion perpetua, without notice and hearing, and even before the accused hadbeen arrested or detained . Ae hel 8 9It is $ell settle that an application for bail froma person char'e $ith a capital offense 0no$ an offense punishable b3 reclusion

perpetua 2 must be set for hearin' at $hich both the efense an the prosecutionmust be 'iven reasonable opportunit3 to prove 0in case of t he prosecution2 that theevi ence of 'uilt of the applicant is stron', or 0in the case of the efense2 that suchevi ence of 'uilt $as not stron'.9 #he respon ent :u 'e $as or ere to pa3 a f ine ofP/;,;;;.;; an $arne to e@ercise 'reater care an ili'ence in the performance ofhis uties.

012"e +uia v . aglalang eci e in (** , 1* the respondent #udge issued a warrantof arrest and also fi&ed the bail of an accused charged with the non bailable offenseof statutory rape, without allowing the prosecution an opportunity to show that theevidence of guilt against the accused is strong . -espondent #udge alleged that theonly evidence on record . the sworn statements of the complaining witness and herguardian . were not sufficient to #ustify the denial of bail . Ae hel 8 9It is anestablishe principle that in cases $here a person is accuse of a capital offense, thetrial court must con uct a hearin' in a summar3 procee in', to allo$ the prosecutionan opportunit3 to present, $ithin a reasonable time, all evi ence it ma3 esire topro uce to prove that the evi ence of 'uilt a'ainst the accuse is stron', beforeresolvin' the issue of bail for the temporar3 release of the accuse . >ailure tocon uct a hearin' before fi@in' bail amounts to a violation of ue process.9 It $asnote that the $arrant of arrest $as returne unserve an that after the case $asre%raffle to the complainant :u 'e6s sala, the $arrant $as set asi e an cancelle .#here $as no evi ence on recor sho$in' $hether the approve bail $as revo

8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

4/8

purpose has been file b3 the accuse an a hearin' thereon con ucte b3 a :u 'eto etermine $hether or not the prosecution6s evi ence of 'uilt is stron'.9 #herespon ent :u 'e $as or ere to pa3 a fine of P/;,;;;.;; $ith a $arnin' that arepetition of similar or the same offense $ill be ealt $ith more severel3.

0( 2 +uillermo v . -eyes eci e in (**+ (5 involvin' an a ministrative complainta'ainst the respon ent :u 'e for 'rantin' bail to the t$o accuse char'e $ithserious ille'al etention. 0hen the two accused first filed a #oint application for bail,

the petition for bail was duly heard and the evidence offered by the accused and the prosecution in opposition thereto were properly ta*en into account . !owever, therespondent #udge denied the application for bail on the around that it was prematuresince the accused were not yet in custody of the law . %n a subse7uent order, therespondent #udge, without conducting any hearing on aforestated application andthereby denying the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the same, granted said

petition upon the voluntary appearance in court of the two accused -espondent #udge insisted that there was a hearing but the proceeding he adverted to was thatwhich was conducted when the motion for bail was first considered and then deniedfor being premature . Ae hel 8 9#he error of the respon ent :u 'e lies in the fact thatin his subse?uent consi eration of the application for bail, he acte affirmativel3thereon $ithout con uctin' another hearin' an $hat is $orse, his or er conce e l3lac

8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

5/8

court imposes in cases of this nature. #he respon ent :u 'e $as or ere to pa3 afine of P+,;;;.;; an $arne that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future$ill be ealt $ith more severel3.

0/2 In the case of $oncerned $iti4ens v . 2lma , 3+ an a ministrative complaint $asfile a'ainst the respon ent :u 'e for 'rantin' bail to a person char'e $ith ille'alrecruitment in lar'e scale an estafa in five separate informations. #he accuse filea motion to fi@ bail an the respon ent :u 'e instea of settin' the application for

hearin', irecte the prosecution to file its comment or opposition. #he prosecutionsubmitte its comment leavin' the application for bail to the iscretion of the court.#he respon ent :u 'e, in 'rantin' the bail of the accuse rationali5e that in or erin'the prosecution to comment on the accuse 6s motion to fi@ bail, he has substantiall3complie $ith the re?uirement of a formal hearin'. 7e further claime that here?uire the prosecution to a uce evi ence but the latter refuse an left theetermination of the motion to his iscretion. #his Court hel , 9It is true that the$ei'ht of the evi ence a uce is a resse to the soun iscretion of the court.7o$ever, such iscretion ma3 onl3 be e@ercise after the hearin' calle to ascertainthe e'ree of 'uilt of the accuse for the purpose of eterminin' $hether or not heshoul be 'rante libert3. . . . In the case at bar, ho$ever, no formal hearin' $ascon ucte b3 the respon ent :u 'e. 7e coul not have assesse the $ei'ht ofevi ence a'ainst the accuse atus before 'rantin' the latter6s application for bail.9#he respon ent :u 'e $as ismisse from service because he $as previousl3 finefor a similar offense an $as sternl3 $arne that a repetition of the same or similaroffense $oul be ealt $ith more severel3.

0 2 In the case of /aylon v . Sison , 31 an a ministrative complaint $as file a'ainst therespon ent :u 'e for 'rantin' bail to several accuse in a ouble mur er case. #herespon ent :u 'e claime that he 'rante the application for bail because theassistant prosecutor $ho $as present at the hearin' i not interpose an ob:ectionthereto an that the prosecution never re?ueste that it be allo$e to sho$ that theevi ence of 'uilt is stron' but instea , submitte the inci ent for resolution. #herespon ent :u 'e further claime that the motion for reconsi eration of the or er'rantin' bail $as enie onl3 after ue consi eration of the pertinent affi avits. Aehel 8 9#he iscretion of the court, in cases involvin' capital offenses ma3 bee@ercise onl3 after there has been a hearin' calle to ascertain the $ei'ht of theevi ence a'ainst the accuse . Peremptoril3, the iscretion lies, not in eterminin'$hether or not there $ill be a hearin', but in appreciatin' an evaluatin' the $ei'htof the evi ence of 'uilt a'ainst the accuse .9 #he respon ent :u 'e $as or ere topa3 a fine of P/;,;;;.;; $ith a stern $arnin' that the commission of the same orsimilar offense in the future $oul be ealt $ith more severel3.

& hearin' is li

8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

6/8

Aith the mountin' prece ents, this Court sees no reason $h3 it has to repeate l3remin trial court :u 'es to perform their man ator3 ut3 of con uctin' the re?uirehearin' in bail applications $here the accuse stan s char'e $ith a capital offense.

&n evaluation of the recor s in the case at bar reveals that respon ent -u 'e'rante bail to the accuse $ithout first con uctin' a hearin' to prove that the 'uilt of the accuse is stron' espite his

8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

7/8

him in the paramount interest of :ustice. "n er such circumstance,the court is authori5e b3 our secon instruction to in?uire from theprosecutor as to the nature of his evi ence to etermine $hetheror not it is stron', it bein' possible for the prosecutor to have errein consi erin' it $ea< an , therefore, recommen in' bail.

&s for the thir instruction, this Court eclare8

It must be observe that the court is ma e to rel3 upon the officialstatement of the Solicitor eneral on the ?uestion of $hether ornot the revelation of evi ence ma3 en an'er the success of theprosecution an :eopar i5e the public interest. #his is so, for thereis no $a3 for the court to etermine that ?uestion $ithout havin'the evi ence isclose in the presence of the applicant, isclosure$hich is sou'ht to be avoi e to protect the interests of theprosecution before the trial.

It is to be recalle that !erras Teehan*ee $as eci e full3 half a centur3 a'o un era completel3 ifferent factual milieu. !aydee !erras Teehan*ee $as in icte un er ala$ ealin' $ith treason cases an collaboration $ith the enem3. #he sai9instructions9 'iven in the sai case un er the (*); Rules of Court no lon'er appl3

ue to the amen ments intro uce in the (*4+ Rules of Court.

In the (*); Rules of Court of the Philippines, the applicable provisions on 9 ail9provi es, as follo$s8

Sec. +. Capital offenses efine . & capital offense, as the termis use in this rule, is an offense $hich, un er the la$ e@istin' atthe time of its commission, an at the time of the application to bea mitte to bail, ma3 be punishe b3 eath.

Sec. =. Capital offenses not bailable. No person in custo 3 forthe commission of a capital offense shall be a mitte to bail if the

evi ence of his 'uilt is stron'.

Sec. 1. Capital offense bur en of proof. On the hearin' of anapplication for a mission to bail ma e b3 an3 person $ho is incusto 3 for the commission of a capital offense, the bur en ofsho$in' that the evi ence of 'uilt is stron' is on the prosecution.

#he above%cite provisions have not been a opte in toto in the (*4+ Rules of Court,as amen e b3 & ministrative Circular No. (/%*), since some phrases an lineshave been intercalate , as sho$n b3 the un erscore phrases an statementsbelo$8

Sec. =. Capital offense, efine . & capital offense, as the term isuse in these rules, is an offense $hich, un er the la$ e@istin' atthe time of its commission an at the time of the application to bea mitte to bail, ma3 be punishe $ith eath.

Sec. 1. Capital offense or an offense punishable b3 reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. No person char'e$ith a capital offense, of an offense punishable b3 reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment, $hen evi ence of 'uilt is stron',shall be a mitte to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution .

Sec. 4. ur en of proof in bail application. &t the hearin' of anapplication for a mission to bail file b3 an3 person $ho is incusto 3 for the commission of an offense punishable b3eath, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the prosecution hasthe bur en of sho$in' that evi ence of 'uilt is stron'. Theevidence presented during the bail hearings shall be consideredautomatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either

party, the court may recall any witness for additional e&aminationunless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise

unable to testify .

It shoul be note that there has been a e in Section 4 a crucial sentence notfoun in the counterpart provision, Section 1, Rule ((; of the (*); Rules of Court.#he above%un erscore sentence in section 4, Rule (() of the (*4+ Rules of Court,as amen e , $as a e to a ress a situation $here in case the prosecution oesnot choose to present evi ence to oppose the application for bail, the :u 'e ma3 feelut3%boun to 'rant the bail application. In such a case, t he :u 'e ma3 $ell losecontrol of the procee in's. In a sense, this un ermines the authorit3 of a :u 'e sinceall that the prosecution has to o to 9force9 the :u 'e to 'rant the bail application is torefrain from presentin' evi ence opposin' the same. In effect, this situation ma

8/11/2019 07 Basco v. Rapatalo (1997)

8/8

a premature revelation of its evi ence an , if it refuse to o so, the accuse $oulclaim the 'rant of bail on the 'roun that the evi ence of 'uilt $as not stron'.9 )(

It shoul be stresse at this point, ho$ever, that the nature of the hearin' in anapplication for bail must be e?uate $ith its purpose i .e ., to etermine the bailabilit3of the accuse . If t he prosecution $ere permitte to con uct a hearin' for bail as if it$ere a full% ress trial on the merits, the purpose of the procee in', $hich is to securethe provisional libert3 of the accuse to enable him to prepare for his efense, coul

be efeate . &t an3 rate, in case of a summar3 hearin', the prosecution $itnessescoul al$a3s be recalle at the trial on the merits. )3

In the li'ht of t he applicable rules on bail an the :urispru ential principles :ustenunciate , this Court reiterates the uties of the trial :u 'e in case an application for bail is file 8

0(2 Notif3 the prosecutor of the hearin' of the application for bail orre?uire him to submit his recommen ation 0Section (4, Rule (() of the Rules of Court as amen e 2B

0/2 Con uct a hearin' of the application for bail re'ar less of$hether or not the prosecution refuses to present evi ence tosho$ that the 'uilt of the accuse is stron' for the purpose ofenablin' the court to e@ercise its soun iscretion 0Sections 1 an4, supra 2B

0 2 Deci e $hether the evi ence of 'uilt of the accuse is stron'base on the summar3 of evi ence of the prosecution 0 a3lon v.Sison, supra 2B

0)2 If the 'uilt of the accuse is not stron', ischar'e the accuseupon the approval of the bailbon . 0Section (*, supra 2. Other$ise,petition shoul be enie .

#he above%enumerate proce ure shoul no$ leave no room for oubt as to theuties of the trial :u 'e in cases of bail applications. So basic an fun amental is it tocon uct a hearin' in connection $ith the 'rant of bail in the proper cases that it$oul amount to :u icial apostas3 for an3 member of the :u iciar3 to isclaim