“application for bail on offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua/life imprisonment requires a hearing to give prosecution the chance to present evidence on the guilt of the accused”
Facts: Respondent judge is accused for malfeasance in granting bail to the accused charged with double murder. Prosecution was not given notice of at least 3 days before the scheduled hearing for bail in violation of Rule 15, section 4 of the Rules of Court and the filing of petition for bail has only 2 non-working day interval from the schedule of the hearing. Moreover the prosecution also assails that they were not given the chance to present evidence that strongly prove the guilt of the accused. Respondent judge justifies not having committed grave abuse of discretion since the prosecution did not interpose objection with his orders and the lack of previous notice was cured with the filing of motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge exercised abuse in discretion in the grant of bail to the accused.
Held: The Supreme Court held that there was abuse in the discretion of the judge in granting bail to the accused considering that the motion for bail was filed on a Saturday and the hearing was immediately conducted on Monday thereby depriving the prosecution to make an opposition thereto and violating the 3-day notice rule embodied in Rule 15, Sec. 4 of Rules of Court. It is a well established rule of law that bail is not a matter of right and requires a hearing where the accused is charged with an offense which is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Respondent judge should have carefully scrutinized the validity of petition for bail before making an outright grant of this motion.
A guided legal principle in the right to bail includes:
. . The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed against in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any order issued in the absence thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim and caprice and outright arbitrariness.
No comments:
Post a Comment