GR 46490; (January, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46490. January 24, 1939.
MARIANO MARCOS, PIO MARCOS and QUIRINO LIZARDO, petitioners, vs. ROMAN A. CRUZ, Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, and Quirino Lizardo, along with Ferdinand Marcos, were charged with murder for the killing of Julio Nalundasan. The information alleged the crime was committed with treachery, evident premeditation, and aggravating circumstances. The respondent judge, after an ex parte examination of two prosecution witnesses, issued a warrant of arrest and ordered detention without bail, opining the crime was capital and the accused were not entitled to bail. The accused filed motions to be admitted to bail. At the hearing, defense counsel asked the prosecution to present evidence to show the accused fell within the constitutional exception for bail (i.e., that proof of guilt is evident and presumption strong). The fiscal refused, contending the burden was on the defense to establish the right to bail. The judge sustained the fiscal and denied the motions without receiving evidence, ruling the accused were not entitled to bail. Ferdinand Marcos was later admitted to bail on other grounds.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying bail without requiring the prosecution to present evidence to prove that the accused fall within the constitutional exception where bail is not a matter of right.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The Court held that when an accused charged with a capital offense applies for bail, the burden is on the prosecution to show at a hearing that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is strong. The ex parte investigation conducted by the judge prior to issuing the warrant of arrest cannot be used as evidence against the accused in the bail hearing, as it was not conducted in their presence and the prosecution did not formally offer such evidence. The accused, by submitting sworn statements denying guilt, sufficiently placed the matter in issue. The respondent judge exceeded his discretion by denying bail without requiring the prosecution to present evidence. The order denying bail was set aside. The case was remanded for a proper hearing where the prosecution must prove the accused fall within the exception, after which the accused may rebut the evidence.
AI Generated by Armztrong.