8/11/2019 Rule 114-116 Digests

1/2

Rule 114: BAIL

MABUTAS v. PERELLO (2005)

Facts:

Two (2) Administrative cases were filed against Judge Norma Perello (JP) where she bothallowed bail. The first case was for the possession, custody, and control of shabu by Aiza

Omadan while the second case was for 2 criminal cases on the selling of shabu by Rosemarie

Pascual, Rolando Uy, and Mary Regencia. In the second case, bail proceedings were

conducted without the requisite hearing, JP justifying that shabu is not a dangerous drugand as such the selling of shabu is punishable only with impirsonment of 12-20 years,therefore bail is a matter of right and a hearing is not required.

Issue/Held:

W/N JP erred in grainting bail?1st admin caseNO

2nd admin caseYES

Hearing on an application of bail is MANDATORY. Whether bail is a matter of rightor discretionary, the prosecutor should be given reasonable notice of hearing, or at least his

recommendation on the matter must be sought. (Sec. 18) After the hearing, the courtsorder granting/refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution.

JPs argument that shabu is a controlled precursor and not a dangerous drug isUNTENABLE. Jrisprudence has always considered shaby as a dangerous drug and as such itssale is punishable by life imprisonment to death (Sec. 5 (1), RA 9165/Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act). As a capital offense, the Judge must hold a hearing on

petitions/motions for bail filed by the accused to determine whether evidence of guilt isstrong.

1st admin case DISMISSED. 2nd admin case JP GUILTY of gross ignorance of law.

LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS (2010)

Facts:Jose Leviste was charged with Murder and was convicted by RTC Makati for homicide and

sentenced to PM[min]-RP[max-12yrs&1day]. Pending appeal, JL filed an urgent applicationfor admission to bail citign advanced age, health condition, and absence of any flight risk but

this was denied. JL argues that CA committed GADALEJ for denial of his application for bailgiven that none of the conditions for denial under Sec 5 was present.

Issue/Held:

W/N absence of any circumstance mentioned in Sec. 5 (3) would mean that bail should

authomatically be granted.NOA finding that none of the circumstances is present will NOT automatically result in

a grant of bail for such would simpy authorize the court to use less stingent sound discretionapproach. Note also that the paragraph states the following or OTHER SIMILAR

CIRCUMSTANCES.

Pending appeal of conviction by RTC of offense not punishable by D/RP/LI,

admission to bail is DISCRETIONARY. RTC changing nature of offense from non-bailable(Murder) to bailable (Homicide) is lodged at CA, thus CA has jurisdiction. Also, if the court

imposed a penalty exceeding 6 years, bail is a matter of discretion.After conviction by RTC, the presumption of innocence and right to bail terminates

and from then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.

Petition DISMISSED.

DOMINGO v. PAGAYATAN (2003)

Facts:Andrea Domingo (BOI Commissioner) charged Exec. Judge Ernesto Pagayatan (RTC Occ.

Mindoro) with gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to Ernesto Penaflorida (USCitizen, undocumented and overstaying alien in violation of the PH Immigration Act and

indicted in US for health care fraud) after the issuance of BOI Board of Commissioners of a

Summary Deportation Order (SDO) of which he was not aware of. Initially, JEP denied thebail recommended by the Provincial Prosecutor on the ground that Estafa is a non-bailable

offense but he later on granted bail due to lack of readiness of the prosecution to presentany witnesses to prove that evidence of guilt was strong.

Issue/Held:

W/N JEP is giulty of gross ignorance of the law for not conducting a hearing before grantingEPs motion for bail?YES

A hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion.JEP granted bail to EP without conducting a hearing despite earlier pronouncement in

denying bail. A hearing is required even when the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence of

fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail and is necessary to take intoconsideration the guidelines in fixing the amoung of bail (Sec. 9).

JEPs lack of knowledge will only free him from administrative liability for grossmisconduct but not for gross ignorance of law for diregarding the rule on bail which carries it

with the penalty of either dismissal from service, suspension, or a fine. But since JEP is not in

bad faith/without malice, only a fine is imposed.

JEP GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and FINED P5k. STERNLY WARNED.

LACHICA v. TORMIS (2005)

Facts:Trinidad Lachica filed a complaint against Judge Rosabella Tormis (MTC Cebu City) for

having received cash bail and as a result calling the police station that a certain Domughohad already posted a cash bail bond with her and may already be released. TL found out that

there was no record whatsoever of any Order of Release from JRT was received by the police

and it was only a day after that she was shown a copy thereof.

8/11/2019 Rule 114-116 Digests

2/2

Issue/Held:

W/N JRT is guilty of grave misconduct?YESJRT personally received the cash bail bond for D thus making her administratively

liable for only the BIR Collector or provincial/municipal/city treasurer may receive as depositthe cash bail bond.

SERAPIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2003)

Facts: