GR 94639; (January, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94639 . January 13, 1992. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. SINFOROSO S. NANO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate and ROLDAN BOHOL Y GALICIA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Roldan Bohol was charged with Kidnapping with Murder, a capital offense. After preliminary examination, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court ordered his arrest and fixed no bail. The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court where an Information was filed. Bohol filed a motion to fix bail, which was denied by respondent Judge Nano in an order given in open court on March 16, 1990. Bohol’s counsel subsequently filed a motion to set aside that order. Without conducting a hearing on this new motion, respondent judge issued an order dated July 4, 1990, setting aside his prior denial and admitting Bohol to bail for P100,000. The private prosecutor discovered this order after the scheduled hearing, alleging the prosecution was denied due process as no hearing was held to allow the presentation of evidence against bail.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the accused charged with a capital offense without conducting a hearing and without summarizing the evidence for the prosecution.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the bail order. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental requirement of procedural due process, which applies equally to the prosecution. In applications for bail for capital offenses, the court must conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This hearing is mandatory to afford the prosecution a meaningful opportunity to present its evidence. The court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the judge’s conclusion on whether such evidence indicates strong guilt.
The assailed July 4, 1990 order was void for arbitrariness. It lacked any recital of prosecution evidence or a judicial determination on the strength of the evidence of guilt. Granting bail as a matter of judicial discretion must be exercised lawfully, guided by evidence adduced during a hearing. By issuing the bail order without a hearing and evaluation of the evidence, respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, rendering the order a patent nullity. The Court ordered the accused recommitted to jail pending a proper hearing on the bail application.