G.R. No. 48019 . February 7, 1941.
GABINO PERALTA, petitioner, vs. SIMEON RAMOS, Judge of First Instance of Isabela, and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ISABELA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gabino Peralta filed a petition for habeas corpus against Judge Simeon Ramos and the Provincial Fiscal of Isabela. Peralta was detained in the provincial jail under a complaint for the crime of murder (asesinato). On September 18, 1940, Peralta filed a motion requesting release on bail pending trial, arguing that (a) based on the prosecution’s evidence presented so far, the crime committed was homicide (homicidio) and not murder, and (b) there was no clear evidence that the crime was murder. He requested a preliminary investigation to determine whether clear evidence existed to support a charge of murder rather than simple homicide. The respondent Judge denied this motion in an order dated October 8, 1940, stating that the accused was charged with a capital offense (murder) and that the affidavit of the accused at folio 6 of the record, in which he admitted firing the fatal shot that caused the death of Samuel Bañez, constituted strong evidence against him. Peralta filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied by the respondent Judge on December 20, 1940. In his answer to the petition, the respondent Judge argued that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy; certiorari would be more appropriate. He further contended that Peralta was lawfully detained by a competent court, that there was evident proof and a strong presumption of guilt, and that he had complied with the provisions of Articles 5 to 8 of Rule 110 of the new Rules of Court in denying the bail petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge erred in denying Peralta’s request for bail without conducting an investigation to determine if there was clear evidence of guilt for a capital offense, as required under the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The applicable laws are the Constitution, Title III, Article 1, Paragraph 16, which provides that “All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong,” and Articles 5 to 8 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The Court held that even in cases of capital offenses, the accused has the right to bail when there is no clear evidence of guilt. To determine whether such clear evidence exists, the court must conduct an investigation with the participation of both the prosecution and the defense. In this case, the respondent Judge did not conduct any investigation to determine whether Peralta should be allowed bail, despite Peralta’s request for such an investigation. The mere fact that Peralta was charged with murder and had admitted his culpability in his affidavit (Exhibit E) was not a valid reason to deny the bail petition, especially since in the affidavit, Peralta stated that the victim had struck him on the head with a club and he fired in response. The Court concluded that Peralta had been deprived of a fundamental right. Accordingly, the Court ordered the respondent Judge or his successor to conduct an investigation for the purpose stated, with notice to the accused and the fiscal. No special pronouncement was made as to costs.