G.R. No. L-10724; April 21, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MELQUIADES RABA, ET AL., defendants. CLEMENTE TALANTOR, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Clemente Talantor and Melquiades Raba were charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Antique. The court fixed bail for each at P30,000, as recommended by the provincial fiscal. After arraignment, Talantor filed an urgent motion on April 26, 1956, praying for a reduction of his bail from P30,000 to P14,000. Although the motion contained a notification to the provincial fiscal, the fiscal was actually notified only at 9:40 a.m. on the same day the motion was set for hearing. Despite this lack of due notice, the court granted the motion and reduced the bail one hour later. On April 28, 1956, the provincial fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the order was irregular because proper notice of the hearing for the reduction was not given to him, preventing him from presenting evidence to show strong guilt warranting denial of the motion. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, prompting the fiscal’s appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted improperly in granting the reduction of bail without providing the provincial fiscal with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, as required by the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the trial court acted improperly. The Rules of Court require a movant to serve notice of a motion on all parties concerned at least three days before the hearing (Section 4, Rule 26). This requirement is particularly imperative in a criminal case involving a capital offense, where admission to bail is discretionary. The court must require reasonable notice of the hearing for a bail application to be given to the fiscal (Section 8, Rule 110), as the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong rests on the prosecution (Section 7, Rule 110). The determination of whether evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion that can only be properly exercised after evidence is submitted at a hearing, with the right to cross-examination and rebuttal. Since Talantor did not serve the required notice on the fiscal at least three days before the hearing, and the court failed to ensure reasonable notice was given, it was improper to reduce the bail without allowing the fiscal an opportunity to be heard. However, the Court noted that the proper remedy for the fiscal should have been a petition for certiorari, not an appeal, as the orders were interlocutory. Consequently, the orders dated April 26, 1956, reducing Talantor’s bail to P14,000 and approving the reduced bail bond, are set aside.