G.R. No. L-608; October 7, 1946
PROCOPIO BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. POMPEYO DIAZ, JOSE P. VELUZ, and ANTONIO QUIRINO, Associate Judges of the People’s Court, Fifth Division, and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, as Head of the Office of Special Prosecutors, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Procopio Beltran, a political detainee, was released on bail of P20,000 on September 15, 1945, granted by the Solicitor General under Executive Order No. 65. On February 5, 1946, the Office of Special Prosecutors filed an indictment for treason (a capital offense) against him in the People’s Court and simultaneously petitioned for the cancellation of his bail, alleging the evidence of guilt was strong. The petition was heard on March 2 and 11, 1946, before Judge Jose P. Veluz alone. During the hearing, the Special Prosecutor recited a summary of evidence from witness affidavits but presented no witnesses. Petitioner’s counsel objected to this recital as incompetent and insufficient, invoking the right to cross-examine, and moved for a ruling on the objection. Judge Veluz overruled the objection because the Special Prosecutor declined to reveal his evidence fully, wishing to present witnesses only at trial. Petitioner then presented two defense witnesses whose testimony did not address the specific treason charges. Based on the Special Prosecutor’s recital and the unrebutted nature of that summary, the three respondent Judges of the Fifth Division issued an order on March 14, 1946, cancelling the bail and ordering petitioner’s arrest. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 13, 1946. Petitioner then filed this certiorari proceeding, arguing that Judge Veluz sitting alone had no authority to hear the bail cancellation petition and that the respondent Judges committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation without competent, strong evidence of guilt.

ISSUE

1. Whether Judge Jose P. Veluz, sitting alone, had authority to hear the petition for cancellation of bail.
2. Whether the respondent Judges of the People’s Court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of bail based on the Special Prosecutor’s recital of evidence from affidavits without presenting the witnesses.

RULING

1. No. Under the People’s Court Act, a division of the People’s Court must have a quorum of two judges to legally transact business. Section 9 provides that two judges constitute a quorum “for the sessions in division,” and in its absence, the division stands ipso facto adjourned. This requirement is mandatory. Therefore, Judge Veluz, sitting alone, was without authority to hear the application for bail cancellation. The subsequent signing of the order by the three judges of the division does not cure this defect. The proceedings before Judge Veluz on the petition are null and void.
2. Yes. For a capital offense like treason, bail may be denied or cancelled only if the evidence of guilt is strong. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The determination requires a judicial discretion exercised after evidence is submitted at a hearing, with the accused having the right to cross-examine and present rebuttal evidence. Mere affidavits or a recital of their contents are hearsay and insufficient unless the accused fails to object. Here, the prosecution presented no evidence at the hearing, only an objected-to recital from affidavits. Therefore, the respondent Judges committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of bail and the arrest of petitioner based on this insufficient showing. The orders dated March 14, 1946, and April 13, 1946, are null and void. Petitioner is entitled to be released on his original bail bond posted on September 15, 1945, without the necessity of posting a new bond.