G.R. No. L-23599 September 29, 1967
REYNALDO C. VILLASEÑOR, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMO ABANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF MARINDUQUE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reynaldo C. Villaseñor was charged with murder for the killing of a police sergeant. He was admitted to bail upon a P60,000 property bond, later reduced to P40,000, which he posted on May 29, 1964. Before arraignment, the Provincial Fiscal amended the information to charge “Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Murder.” Respondent Judge Maximo Abano, sua sponte, cancelled the bail bond on August 7, 1964, and ordered Villaseñor’s arrest. Upon motion for reconsideration, the judge, on September 9, 1964, resolved to admit him to bail upon a cash bond of P60,000. On September 15, 1964, acting on another motion, the judge fixed a new property bond of P60,000 but imposed the condition that it must be posted only by residents of Marinduque province actually staying therein, who have owned and possessed their properties for five years. Villaseñor filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the orders of August 7, September 9, and September 15, 1964, as issued without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, and for violating the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the P60,000 bail fixed by the respondent judge is excessive, violating the constitutional injunction against excessive bail.
2. Whether the condition imposed by the respondent judge—that the property bond be posted only by residents of Marinduque province actually staying therein—is valid.

RULING

1. On the amount of bail: The Court ruled that the P60,000 bail was not excessive. The constitutional provision against excessive bail is addressed to the discretion of the court. Guidelines for fixing bail include the ability of the accused, nature and penalty of the offense, character of the accused, strength of evidence, and probability of appearance. The principal factor is the probability of the accused appearing or fleeing. Villaseñor was charged with a complex crime punishable by capital punishment. The Court noted the reasonableness of the Department of Justice Circular recommending bail at P2,000 per year of imprisonment corresponding to the medium period of the penalty. Given the gravity of the offense and the circumstances, the respondent judge did not commit a discernible abuse of discretion in fixing bail at P60,000.
2. On the residency condition for sureties: The Court upheld the validity of the condition. Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, which requires sureties to be resident householders or freeholders within the Philippines, sets a minimum requirement but does not deprive the court of its inherent power to determine the acceptability of bail. The court has broad powers essential to its judicial function. The respondent judge justified the condition based on practical difficulties in serving notices to sureties outside the province, which could delay trial and frustrate the purpose of bail—to secure the accused’s appearance. The condition ensuring sureties are within easy reach of court processes is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to guarantee sufficient and effective bail.