Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
RULING:
FACTS:
waive any matter which affects his property, and any alienable
right or privilege of which he is the owner or which belongs to
him or to which he is legally entitled, whether secured by
contract, conferred with statute, or guaranteed by constitution,
provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual, are
intended for his sole benefit, do not infringe on the rights of
others, and further provided the waiver of the right or privilege
is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy;
and the principle is recognized that everyone has a right to
waive, and agree to waive, the advantage of a law or rule
made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in
his private capacity, if it can be dispensed with and
relinquished without infringing on any public right, and without
detriment to the community at large. . . .
Although the general rule is that any right or privilege
conferred by statute or guaranteed by constitution may be
waived, a waiver in derogation of a statutory right is not
favored, and a waiver will be inoperative and void if it infringes
on the rights of others, or would be against public policy or
morals and the public interest may be waived.
While it has been stated generally that all personal rights
conferred by statute and guaranteed by constitution may be
waived, it has also been said that constitutional provisions
intended to protect property may be waived, and even some of
the constitutional rights created to secure personal liberty are
subjects of waiver.
We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the
constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right which is
personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized
by law.
The respondent Judge then clearly acted with grave abuse of
discretion in granting bail to the private respondent.
LAVIDES vs CA
FACTS:
Manolet Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R.A. No.
7610 (an act providing for stronger deterrence and special
protection against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination,
providing penalties for its violation, and other purposes). His
arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an
entrapment conducted by the police. It appears that the
parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the
police that their daughter, then 16 years old, had been
contacted by petitioner for an assignation that night at
petitioners room at the Metropolitan Hotel. Apparently, this
was not the first time the police received reports of petitioners
activities.
When petitioner opened the door, the police saw him with
Lorelie, who was wearing only a t-shirt and an underwear,
whereupon they arrested him. Based on the sworn statement
of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers,
which were submitted at the inquest, an information for
violation of Art. III, 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 was filed against
petitioner.
Petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial
Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate
Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful
Warrantless Arrest; and (3) In the Event of Adverse
Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein Accused be
Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on
Which He is Charged.
Nine more informations for child abuse were filed against
petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and
by three other minor children.
No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed
separate applications for bail in the nine cases.
TRIAL COURT: 2. The accused is entitled to bail in all the
above-entitled case. He is hereby granted the right to post bail
in the amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of
P800,000.00 for all the cases under the following conditions:
. A.)
B.) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail
bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited,
warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and
the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia;
C.)
D.) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the
arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire
jurisdiction over the accused;
Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him.
Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial court to
suspend the arraignment scheduled. He filed a motion in
which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to
P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to
his arraignment.
The trial court, in separate orders, denied petitioners motions
to reduce bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to
suspend arraignment. Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned
during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him
and then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds.
The Court of Appeals declared conditions (a) and (b) invalid
but declined to pass upon the validity of condition (d) on the
ground that the issue had become moot and academic.
Petitioner takes issue with the Court of Appeals with respect to
its treatment of condition (d) of the May 16, 1997 order of the
trial court which makes petitioners arraignment a prerequisite
to the approval of his bail bonds. His contention is that this
condition is void and that his arraignment was also invalid
because it was held pursuant to such invalid condition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the condition is void and the
arraignment invalid?
RULING:
YES. Bail should be granted before arraignment,
otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion
to quash. For if the information is quashed and the case is
dismissed, there would then be no need for the arraignment of
the accused. In the second place, the trial court could ensure
the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by
granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the
proceedings, such as arraignment. Under Rule 114, 2(b) of
the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the conditions of bail
is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever so required by the court or these Rules," while
under Rule 116, 1(b) the presence of the accused at the
arraignment is required.
SERAPIO vs SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Before the Court are two petitions for certiorari filed by petitioner
Edward Serapio, assailing the resolutions of the Third Division of
the Sandiganbayan denying his petition for bail, motion for a
reinvestigation and motion to quash, and a petition for habeas
corpus, all in relation to Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder
wherein petitioner is one of the accused together with former
President Joseph E. Estrada, Jose Jinggoy P. Estrada and
several others.
Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal
Counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, a non-stock, nonprofit foundation established in February 2000 ostensibly for the
purpose of providing educational opportunities for the poor and
underprivileged but deserving Muslim youth and students, and
support to research and advance studies of young Muslim
educators and scientists.
Petitioner, as trustee of the Foundation, received on its behalf a
donation in the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200
Million) from Ilocos Sur Governor Luis Chavit Singson.
Accused by Singson. Informations filed.
The Sandiganbayan set the arraignment of the accused, including
petitioner. In the meantime, on April 27, 2001, petitioner filed with
the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Petition for Bail which was set
for hearing on May 4, 2001. For his part, petitioners co-accused
Jose Jinggoy Estrada filed on April 20, 2001 a Very Urgent
Omnibus Motion alleging that he was entitled to bail as a matter of
right.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not petitioner should first be arraigned before
hearings of his petition for bail may be conducted?
RULINGS:
(3) Whether a joint hearing of the petition for bail of petitioner and
those of the other accused is mandatory?
(4) Whether the People waived their right to adduce evidence in
opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner and failed to adduce
strong evidence of guilt of petitioner for the crime charged?
OCAMPO vs BERNABE
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Eduardo Ocampo to set
aside an order issued of the People's court denying his
application for bail.
The petitioner was arrested by the Counter Intelligence Coprs
of the Armed Forces of the United States and confined in
Muntinglupa Prisons, and pursuant to Executive Order No. 6555
he was turned over to the Commonwealth of the Philippines and
later on filed with the Peoples Court his application for bail under
Act No. 682.
At the hearing of the application, the special prosecutor stated
that petitioner with having pointed out Placido Trinidad as a
guerilla to the Japanese and for that reason Placido Trinidad was
shot to death.
No evidence, however, was presented by the special
prosecutor and all that he did at the hearing was to recite the
contents of an affidavit which has no referrence to count No. 4,
and to state further that he had 27 more affidavits.
Petitioner made an objection stating that a mere recital is not a
evidence and that evidence cannot be considered strong which
has not been subjected to the test of cross-examination.
He testified in his own behalf in denying all the charges
preferred against him and stated that said charges are mere
intrigues of his political enemy Marcelo Trinidad.
Under all these circumstances, the Fourth division of the
People's Court composed of Judges Jose Bernabe, Emilio
Rilloraza and Angel Gamboa, issued an order denying the
application for bail. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not no proof was presented by the special
prosecutor to show that the evidence of guilt is strong, thus,
the People's Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in
denying the application for bail?
RULING:
YES. We have held in Teehankee vs. Director of
Prisons, that all persons shall before conviction be bailable
except when charge is a capital offense and the evidence of
guilt is strong. The general rule, therefore, is that all persons,
SIAZON vs JUDGE
FACTS:
At the outset it should be mentioned that the instant petition
is formally defective in that the petitioner appears to be the
State Prosecutor handling the case below instead of the
People of the Philippines, who should properly be represented
in this proceeding by the Solicitor General.
At the outset, let it be stated that after the arraignment of
the accused and before the commencement of the trial, the
applications for bail, were heard
"By 'summary hearing,' this Court added, "we mean such brief
and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence
of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the
hearing which is merely to determine the weight of the
evidence for purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court does
not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to
the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or
against accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the
trial or on what further evidence may be therein offered and
admitted.
MAMOLO vs NARISIMA
FACTS:
Criminal complaint for murder was filed against Antonio
Balagot and Ariel Acha for the murder of Daniel Mamolo,Jr., son
of complainant
After Judge Rogelio R. Narisma conducted the requisite
preliminary examination he issued the corresponding warrants of
arrest against the accused. Respondent Judge recommended no
bail since murder is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt
was strong. Acha was later arrested while Balagot surrendered to
the PC Provincial Command.
Subsequently, Balagot through counsel filed a Petition For
Admission to Bail and set the same for hearing. At the scheduled
hearing defense counsel informed the court that Balagot was ill
and asked the court to dispense with the submission of his
petition and, instead, to allow Balagot to be treated at the hospital.
MAMOLO: claims that despite the fact that respondent Judge
recommended no bail for both accused he nevertheless allowed
Balagot to put a bail of P150,000.00 without giving the
prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence to prove that
the evidence of guilt against the accused was strong.
MAMOLO: also avers that on several occasions he saw
respondent Judge and counsel for accused Balagot together and
engaged in a series of private talks at a nearby restaurant.
In his Memorandum, approved by Court Administrator Ernani
Cruz Pao, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez found
that respondent Judge disregarded procedural due process in
granting bail to the accused. He opined that the prosecutions
waiver to present evidence ought to have prompted respondent
Judge to ask the prosecution to present its witnesses at another
date set for the purpose (of asking) clarificatory questions from
which he may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt of the
accused.
ISSUE:
Whether or not JUDGE NARISIMA ACTED
INAPPROPRIATELY IN RECOMMENDING THE BAIL FOR
BALAGOT?
RULING:
CORTES vs CATRAL
FACTS:
> A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes
charging Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC with Gross
Ignorance of the Law.
> Respondent Judge as complained in particular cases,
granted bailbond in murder cases without hearing and even
reduced bailbonds but no hearing was also done.
> Respondent judge branded the complainant as a self
anointed concern who has gained notoriety as a character
assassinator, a public nuisance and most often called speaker
for hire during election time.
> The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the
dismissal of the complaint saying that there is nothing in the
allegations of the complainant that would warrant the
imposition of administrative sanction against respondent
judge.
> In recommending the dismissal of the complaint against
respondent judge, the Office of the Court Administrator noted,
complainant failed to show any indication that bad faith
motivated the actuation of the respondent in granting and
reducing the amount of bail of the accused in some of the
criminal cases that were assigned in his sala. It is crystal clear
that the increase or reduction of bail rests in the sound
discretion of the court depending upon the particular
circumstances of the case. It should be noted further that the
reduction in the amount of bail of the accused in the criminal
cases in question were all done by the respondent with the
knowledge and conformity of the Public Prosecutor concerned.
Moreover, the actions taken by the respondent were in the
exercise of judicial discretion that may not be assailed in an
administrative proceedings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the OCA was correct?
RULING:
NO. Bail is the security required by the court and
given by the accused to ensure that the accused appears
before the proper court at the scheduled time and place to
answer the charges brought against him or her. It is awarded
to the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until his
PEOPLE vs TUPPAL
FACTS:
On appeal is the joint decision of the RTC, finding appellant
Saturnino Tuppal guilty of robbery with homicide and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
Appellant remained at large for almost nine (9) years after
the filing of the aforesaid cases. It was only on March 5, 1998
that appellant was arrested in Cainta, Rizal and in connection
with another case for robbery.
Appellant was arraigned. Assisted by counsel, he pleaded
not guilty to the charges. The cases were then consolidated
and trial ensued.
The prosecutions evidence established that:
On the evening of December 22, 1989, the spouses
Bonifacio and Florfina Solito and their four-year-old child,
Efren, attended the wedding of Florfinas younger sister, Loida
Atuan, at Barangay Banguro, Reina Mercedes, Isabela. At
about 11:30 P.M., the Solitos accompanied by Bartolo Atuan,
Jr., Florfinas 26-year-old brother, left the wedding reception.
They had barely traveled some 300 meters away and were in
front of the house of Felix Sacang, when they were waylaid by
appellant and his four companions, now the co-accused.After
Ben Tuppal announced a heist, Danilo Tuppal immediately ran
off with Florfinas handbag containing P2,500.00 in cash.
Appellant then shot Florfina with a short firearm, hitting her in
the abdomen. Bartolo Atuan, Jr., tried to shield Florfina from
further harm but Marcelo Tuppal then shot Bartolo, killing him
on the spot.
Florfina took advantage of the situation and scurried
towards a nearby banana plantation. The malefactors gave
pursuit and continued to fire at her hitting her further at the
buttocks and in the arm. She pretended to be dead and fell to
the ground. The ploy worked because she heard accused
Pedro Tuppal say, Let us go, she is already dead.
In the meantime, upon hearing the gunshots, Bonifacio
Solito and his son Efren scampered towards the house of Felix
Sacang. Co-accused Ben Tuppal ran after both father and
son. He aimed the gun at them, but the gun jammed and did
not fire.
In the present cases, appellant raised the defense of denial
and alibi.
CRIMPRO ISSUE:
Whether or not the fact that the trial court had held
during the bail hearing that the prosecution evidence was
weak, it is estopped from rendering a contrary ruling after the
trial?
RULING:
NO. Said findings should not be construed as an
immutable evaluation of the prosecutions evidence.
It is settled that the assessment of the prosecution evidence
presented during bail hearings in capital offenses is
preliminary and intended only for the purpose of granting or
denying applications for the provisional release of the
accused.
OTHER ISSUES:
Whether or not the evidence now on record is sufficient to hold
appellant Saturnino Tuppal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of robbery with homicide? YES
The court a quo found the prosecutions evidence credible.
It disbelieved appellants bare denials. Eyewitness Florfina
Solitos testimony on the hold-up incident was replete with
material details. She testified that after being shot in the
abdomen, she grappled with appellant for possession of the
gun. Meanwhile, co-accused Danilo Tuppal dashed off with
her bag and its contents, according to her. She also described
the firearm used in shooting her and killing her brother. These
details could not have sprung from her imagination, but only
from her vivid recollection of the fatal incident implicating the