G.R. No. 79269 ; June 5, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PROCORO J. DONATO, in his official capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch XII, Manila; RODOLFO C. SALAS, alias Commander Bilog, respondents.

FACTS

Rodolfo Salas, alias “Commander Bilog,” was charged with Rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. At the time of the filing of the Information, the offense was punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under amendatory decrees, making it non-bailable if evidence of guilt is strong. While his petition for bail was pending, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 187, which repealed those decrees and restored the original penalty for rebellion: prision mayor and a fine. Consequently, the offense became bailable. Respondent Judge granted bail to Salas, setting the bond at P30,000.00, later increased to P50,000.00.
The People, through the Solicitor General, filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition. They argued that despite the restoration of the bailable penalty, the court should have conducted a hearing to determine whether Salas was entitled to bail based on the strength of the evidence and the attendant circumstances of his case. The petitioner contended that the right to bail is not absolute and can be denied even for a bailable offense if the accused poses a flight risk or is a danger to the community.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the accused without conducting a hearing to determine if, despite the offense being bailable, bail should be denied on grounds such as the risk of flight or danger to the community.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the orders of the respondent Judge granting bail. The Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is clear: once an offense is classified as bailable, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The 1987 Constitution , in Section 13, Article III, guarantees that “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.”
With the effectivity of Executive Order No. 187, rebellion was no longer punishable by reclusion perpetua but by prision mayor, a penalty that is indisputably bailable. The constitutional provision draws a definitive line; the exception to the right to bail applies only to those charged with capital offenses (punishable by reclusion perpetua or death) where the evidence of guilt is strong. Since rebellion ceased to be a capital offense, Salas fell within the general rule entitling him to bail. The Court ruled that the respondent Judge correctly applied the law. The grant of bail became ministerial once the offense was bailable. The petitioner’s arguments invoking judicial discretion to deny bail based on flight risk or dangerousness were untenable, as such discretion is constitutionally constrained and cannot override the clear right to bail for non-capital offenses.