Tuesday, December 18, 2018

People v. Donato (1991)


People v. Donato
G.R. No. 79269
June 5, 1991

FACTS:
·       Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
o   Solicitor General
o   Filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the order of respondent judge dated July 7, 1987 and the subsequent order dated July 30, 1987.
·       Respondents:
o   Hon. Procoro DONATO (Presiding Judge RTC Branch XII, Manila)
o   Rodolfo C. SALAS ("Commander Bilog")

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
·       Oct. 2, 1986 (original information filed); Oct. 26, 1986 - Salas and co-accused charged for the crime of rebellion (under Article 134, in relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code) (Criminal Case no. 86-48926)
·       Oct. 3, 1986 - Petition for habeas corpus for private respondent and his co-accused was filed with this Court
o   October 16, 1986: Dismissed based on agreement of parties under which herein private respondent "will remain in legal custody and will face trial before the court having custody over his person," warrants of arrest of his co-accused are deemed recalled; they shall be immediately released but shall submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their person
·       Nov. 7, 1986: Private respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information
o   Petitioner filed an Opposition citing that in the Joint Manifestation and Motion (Oct. 14, 1986) private respondent categorically conceded that he "will remain in legal custody and face trial"
·       May 9, 1987: Private respondent filed petition for bail
o   May 27, 1986: Petitioner opposed under the grounds that rebellion became a capital offense under provisions of P.D. nos 1996, 942 and 1834, by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, therefore the accused is no longer entitled to bail as evidence of his guilt is strong
·       June 5, 1987 - EO No. 187 repealing and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. Thus, original penalty for rebellion, prison mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.00 was restored.
o   July 7, 1987: Respondent Judge granted private respondent's petition for bail, fixed the bond at 30,000.00
o   Petitioner contends it would be dangerous to grant bail to private respondent considering his stature in the CPP-NPA hierarchy
·       Judge: "Such fear cannot be reason to deny him bail. For the law is very explicit that when it comes to bailable offenses an accused is entitled as a matter of right to bail. Dura lex sed lex."
o   July 17, 1987 - Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration; includes facts pointing to the inevitability that the private respondent will evade the conditions of his bail.
·       July 30, 1987 - Respondent judge DENIES motion for consideration due to lack of merit but shall reconsider motion to increase the amount of bail

ISSUE/S:
1.     Whether the right to bail may, under certain circumstances, be denied to a person who is charged with an otherwise bailable offense
2.     Whether such right may be waived

HOLDING
1.      Held.
o   Purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance in trial; presupposes that the person applying for it should be in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of liberty
o   The prosecution argued that Salas is estopped from filing bail because he has waived his right to bail when he withdrew his petition or habeas corpus as a sign of agreement that he will be held in custody.
2.     Held.
o   Court recognizes waivers of constitutional rights (unreasonable searches and seizures, right to counsel and to remain silent, right to be heard)

JUDGMENT:
·       Orders of respondent judge are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE
o   Right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived.
o   Respondent Judge clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the private respondent.
o   The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right to bail when he withdrew his petition for the issuance of the WoHC.
o   The contention of the defense that Salas merely agreed to be in custody and that the same does not constitute a waiver of his right to bail is not tenable. His waiver to such right is justified by his act of withdrawing his petition for WoHC.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blas v. Santos (1961)

Blas v. Santos (1961) Topic: Future Inheritance, except when authorized by law (Art. 1347) PARTIES : ·        Peti...