G.R. No. 89591-96, August 13, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Antique, and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA, respondents.

FACTS

This case arose from the murder of former Governor Evelio Javier in 1986. Private respondent Avelino Javellana, initially counsel for some accused, was later charged as a co-conspirator. After his arrest in 1989, Javellana, citing a prior threatening incident with an armed jail guard, successfully moved before respondent Judge Bonifacio Maceda for detention at a PC/INP stockade instead of the Antique Provincial Jail. The prosecution initially withdrew its objection. Subsequently, the Provincial Commander requested the court to order Javellana’s transfer to the provincial jail to comply with superior orders. Judge Maceda granted this request, ordering Javellana confined at the Binirayan Rehabilitation Center.
Javellana filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, arguing the new facility was unsafe and detrimental to his health. Without resolving this motion or conducting a hearing, and despite a pending prosecution motion for his inhibition, Judge Maceda issued an order on September 14, 1989, directing Javellana’s release from detention. The order mandated Javellana to post a P200,000 bond for his provisional liberty, to be cancelled upon his surrender if the inhibition motion was granted, and required him to seek clearance from the court before leaving the province.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Maceda committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the release of accused Javellana on a cash bond.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the release order. The Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the judge’s lack of authority to grant bail in a capital offense after the prosecution has presented its evidence and rested its case. Under the Rules of Court, bail for a capital offense becomes a matter of discretion upon a showing of weak evidence of guilt. However, this judicial discretion must be exercised in a hearing where both the prosecution and defense are heard. In this case, the prosecution had already formally offered and rested its evidence against the apprehended co-accused, which constituted proof evident against Javellana as a co-conspirator.
The Court emphasized that the order for Javellana’s release was issued without the requisite hearing to determine the strength of the evidence against him. The judge’s act of setting bail based solely on Javellana’s motion for reconsideration on detention conditions, without addressing the merits of the bail application or the pending inhibition motion, was arbitrary. The conditions attached to the release, such as the bond’s cancellation upon the judge’s potential inhibition, were irregular and beyond judicial authority. Consequently, the order was issued without jurisdiction and constituted a clear grave abuse of discretion, warranting correction by certiorari. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rules on bail, especially for serious crimes, must be strictly observed to uphold the proper administration of justice.