G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 8, 2015
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Luzviminda S. Valdez and the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), Respondents.

FACTS

This is a special civil action for certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan’s October 10, 2014 Resolution which granted the motions of respondent Luzviminda S. Valdez, a former mayor of Bacolod City, and fixed bail for her in three criminal cases. Valdez was charged with the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Official Documents, involving an aggregate overclaim of P274,306.75. The Office of the Ombudsman recommended “no bail,” contending the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, making bail discretionary. Valdez argued she is entitled to bail as a matter of right, asserting the proper penalty, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, is only 20 years.
The Sandiganbayan sided with Valdez, recalling its “no bail” arrest order and setting bail at P200,000.00 per case. The People filed the present petition without first filing a motion for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan, prompting a procedural challenge from Valdez.

ISSUE

Whether an accused charged with the complex crime of Malversation through Falsification, where the amount exceeds P22,000.00, is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution, and reinstated the “no bail” recommendation. Procedurally, the Court found the petition proper despite the lack of a motion for reconsideration, as the issue raised was purely legal and had already been passed upon by the lower court, falling under a recognized exception.
On the substantive issue, the Court held that bail is not a matter of right for Valdez. The core legal logic centers on the proper penalty for the complex crime. Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, malversation involving an amount over P22,000.00 is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. For the complex crime under Article 48, the penalty for the most serious offense (malversation) is imposed in its maximum period. The maximum period of the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the imposable penalty for the charged offense is reclusion perpetua, a penalty for which bail is discretionary, not a matter of right. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing bail without first conducting a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.