GR 79827; (July, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 79827 July 31, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE AMALIA RESTERIO-ANDRADE, GARY ARCENIO and CRUZALDO NICODEMUS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Gary Arcenio and Cruzaldo Nicodemus were charged with murder, with attendant circumstances of conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. The Provincial Fiscal recommended bail at P40,000 for each accused, which the Regional Trial Court initially approved. The accused, claiming poverty and having voluntarily surrendered, filed a motion to reduce bail to P12,000. The Trial Fiscal objected, citing Department of Justice Circular No. 10, which mandated a ten-fold increase in bail amounts for all offenses.
The respondent judge granted the motion, reducing bail to P12,000 each. The court order reasoned that Circular No. 10 lacked implementing guidelines and was not fully complied with nationwide. Upon the Fiscal’s motion for reconsideration, the judge elaborated that the evidence against the accused for murder was “not strong,” noting the absence of reply affidavits and a clear motive, and questioning the nature of the victim’s wounds. The court maintained its reduction, prompting the People to file this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in reducing the bail from P40,000 to P12,000 for each accused charged with murder?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion and set aside the assailed orders. The Court held that while the determination of bail is a judicial function guided by factors under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the judge must exercise that discretion judiciously. The respondent judge erred by effectively conducting a pre-trial determination on the merits and the nature of the offense, which is premature at the bail stage. The information clearly charged murder, and the judge’s personal assessment that the evidence was weak for murder constituted an overreach.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the judge unjustifiably disregarded Department of Justice Circular No. 10. While not strictly binding on courts, such circulars express executive policy on criminal law enforcement and merit serious consideration, especially as updates to prior circulars sanctioned by the Court. The circular’s directive for a ten-fold increase was explicit and required no further guidelines. By ignoring this pertinent policy and fixing a disproportionately low bail amount, the respondent judge acted arbitrarily. The Court reinstated the original bail of P40,000 for each accused.