G.R. No. 88531 June 18, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and MARIANO CORVERA, JR., petitioners, vs. TRANQUILINO CALO, JR., BELLARMINO ALLOCOD and HON. NICOLAS LAPEÑA, JR., HON. EMETERIO C. CUI and HON. JUSTO P. TORRES, JR., all Justices of the Court of Appeals, Special Sixth Division, respondents.

FACTS

Mariano Corvera, Sr. was murdered inside a Butuan City courtroom. An Information for Murder was filed against Pablo Macapas (at large) and private respondents Tranquilino Calo, Jr. and Bellarmino Allocod, recommending no bail. Executive Judge Rosarito Dabalos, however, granted bail to the respondents without a hearing. This order was annulled by the Court of Appeals, which directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if the evidence of guilt was strong. Judge Jose C. Adao, to whom the case was reassigned, conducted marathon hearings and subsequently granted bail to Calo, Jr. and Allocod, setting their bonds at P100,000 and P60,000, respectively.
Private petitioner Mariano Corvera, Jr., the victim’s son, filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition, ruling that Corvera, Jr. lacked the capacity to sue without the imprimatur of the Solicitor General. It also upheld the trial judge’s order granting bail. Corvera, Jr. elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeals erred on both procedural capacity and the substantive merits of the bail grant.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the private offended party has the legal capacity to file the petition for certiorari without the Solicitor General; and (2) Whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that while the Solicitor General ordinarily represents the People in criminal proceedings, the ends of substantial justice warranted entertaining the petition. As the offended party, Corvera, Jr. had sufficient personality and a direct interest in contesting the bail grant to the alleged murderers of his father. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not hinder the administration of justice.
On the substantive issue, the Court found that the grant of bail was void for violating procedural due process. The prosecution was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all its evidence to prove that the evidence of guilt was strong. The “marathon hearings” conducted were insufficient. Citing People vs. San Diego, the Court held that whether in a summary proceeding or a regular trial, the prosecution must be given a meaningful chance to present its case against bail. The trial judge’s failure to observe this fundamental fairness, which is the essence of due process, constituted grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and made permanent the temporary restraining order against the bail grant.