GR 128859; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128859; June 29, 2004
AIDA POBLETE and HON. REUBEN P. DE LA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM LU, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Aida Poblete was charged with Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818, involving over Two Million Pesos. The Information did not recommend bail. The trial court, presided by petitioner Judge Reuben P. de la Cruz, issued an order fixing bail at Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00), ruling that the offense was bailable as a matter of right since it was not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Private respondent William Lu moved for reconsideration, arguing that under P.D. 818, the imposable penalty could exceed thirty years, making bail discretionary and necessitating a hearing. The trial court denied the motion.
Private respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, ruling that P.D. 818 required the penalty to be termed reclusion perpetua for purposes of accessory penalties when the fraud amount is substantial, thereby making bail not a matter of right and mandating a hearing. The Court of Appeals found grave abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s ex parte grant of bail. Petitioner elevated the decision to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Petition for Review, which assails the Court of Appeals’ decision requiring a bail hearing, has been rendered moot and academic.
RULING
Yes, the Petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. While the core legal issue involved the propriety of granting bail without a hearing for estafa under P.D. 818—a matter subsequently clarified by the Court’s adoption of DOJ Circular No. 74 in Lim v. People—the supervening event of the accused’s acquittal rendered the present petition devoid of any practical legal effect. Upon requisition of the complete records, the Supreme Court discovered that the criminal case against Aida Poblete had already been dismissed and she was acquitted via an Order dated October 15, 1999, after the trial court granted her Demurrer to Evidence. Consequently, the question regarding her entitlement to provisional liberty during the trial stage became academic. The Court cannot rule on a moot case. The lawyers for both parties were directed to explain their failure to inform the Court of the acquittal, as such omission may constitute indirect contempt.