Baylon v Judge Sison 243 SCRA 284 (1995)

“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.

Comendador v De Villa 200 SCRA 80 (1991)

"military members exempted from the right to bail”

Facts: This is a consolidated case of members of the AFP who were charged with violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). The petitioners were questioning the conduct of the pre-trial investigation conducted where a motion to bail was filed but was denied. Petitioner applied for provisional liberty and preliminary injunction before the court which was granted. However De Villa refused to release petitioner for provisional liberty pending the resolution of the appeal they have taken before the court invoking that military officers are an exemption from the right to bail guaranteed by the Constitution. Decision was rendered reiterating the release for provisional liberty of petitioners with the court stating that there is a mistake in the presumption of respondents that bail does not apply among military men facing court martial proceeding. Respondents now appeal before the higher court.