G.R. No. 187464, November 25, 2015
CABIB ALONTO TANOG, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, 12th Judicial Region, MARAWI CITY, AND GAPO SIDIC, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On July 5, 2004, Cabib Tanog, Jr. was shot dead. Respondent Gapo Sidic was apprehended the same day. A complaint for murder was filed against Sidic and four others. An Information for murder was filed and the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4471-04. Sidic filed a motion to fix bail, claiming the evidence of guilt was not strong. After presentation of prosecution witnesses, the case was re-raffled due to judicial assignments and eventually reached Branch 8 presided by respondent Judge Rasad G. Balindong. On February 11, 2009, Judge Balindong granted Sidic’s motion to fix bail, setting bail at ₱30,000.00, finding the evidence of guilt not strong as the witnesses did not see the actual shooting. Sidic was ordered released on February 13, 2009 after posting bond. The prosecution filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and for inhibition. On March 2, 2009, Judge Balindong denied the motion for reconsideration but inhibited himself from the case “out of delicadeza.” Petitioner Cabib Alonto Tanog filed this petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion in granting bail and fixing a low amount, and that Judge Balindong should have inhibited himself earlier due to relationship to an accused. During the pendency of this petition, Sidic was convicted of murder by the RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan City in a decision dated January 20, 2015, which became final and executory on March 26, 2015.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition for certiorari assailing the orders granting bail has been rendered moot and academic.
2. Whether the petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy.
3. Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to fix bail and setting the bail amount.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition.
1. The case was rendered moot and academic. A case becomes moot when a supervening event renders a ruling of no practical use or value. During the pendency of this petition, Sidic was convicted of murder, a capital offense, and the conviction became final and executory. This conviction imports that the evidence of guilt against him was strong. Any resolution on the propriety of the orders granting his provisional release would be of no useful or practical value, as his incarceration was already warranted by the final conviction.
2. The petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. Although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, direct resort to the Supreme Court is not allowed unless the redress cannot be obtained in the lower courts or exceptional and compelling circumstances justify it. The petitioner failed to offer any explanation for bypassing the Court of Appeals. The Court reaffirmed the judicial policy that it will not entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances are present, which were not shown in this case.
3. Even if decided on the merits, the petition fails to establish grave abuse of discretion. The right to bail before conviction is a matter of discretion for capital offenses. The grant or denial of bail hinges on whether the evidence of guilt is strong. The trial judge is given wide latitude in making this determination. The Supreme Court found that Judge Balindong’s assessment that the evidence of guilt was not strong was based on the prosecution’s evidence, which showed that none of the witnesses actually saw the victim being shot. His finding was not whimsical, arbitrary, or made in bad faith. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the assailed orders.