Cortes

DOCTRINE:
The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in

custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would
be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for
some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
The judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where

the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the
application of bail to the sound discretion of the court.
A hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail. The
importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases
wherein the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to
adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for
bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask
searching questions from which it may infer the strength of the
evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.
FLAVIANO B. CORTES, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Aparri,
Cagayan, respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387
September 10, 1997
ROMERO, J.:
NATURE OF CASE:
Administrative Matter
In his comment dated August 16, 1996, respondent judge branded

the complainant as a self-anointed concern (sic) citizen of Aparri, Cagayan
who has gained notoriety as a character assassinator, a public nuisance
and most often called speaker for hire during election time. Respondent
further laments that a ghost lawyer is taking advantage of the notoriety of
Mr. Flaviano Cortes by manipulating him like a robot and letting him loose
like a mad dog barking on the wrong tree and biting everybody including
the other members of the bench.
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 the judge.
In recommending the dismissal of the complaint against
respondent judge, the Office of the Court Administrator noted, x x x
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. x
x x 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
proceeding.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
BRIEF
The Court in this case elucidates the rules in the grant of the application
for bail.
ISSUE OF THE CASE

Whether Judge Catral is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for
having granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases 07-874 and 08-866.
FACTS
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS

Judge Segundo B. Catral is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for
having granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases 07-874 and 08-866
without having conducted the requisite hearing.
A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging

Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gross
Ignorance of the Law committed when:
(1) he granted bail in murder cases without hearing (People v. Duerme, et
al., Criminal Case 07-894 for murder; People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag,
Criminal Case 08-866 for murder);
(2) he reduced the bailbond granted by the provincial prosecutor from
P180,000 to P30,000 without hearing (Barangay Captain Rodolfo
Castanedas Criminal Case 11-6250 for Illegal Possession of Firearm);
(3) he granted a bailbond of P14,800 in a homicide case (Barangay Captain
Nilo de Rivera); and (4) he acquitted Jimmy Siriban, the rumors spreading
that the wife of Judge Segundo Catral went to Jimmy Siribans house to get
the envelop.
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 guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable him to
prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to
conviction.
Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each
case. The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the
accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with the

constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive.
Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion,
reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or
fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation because in
fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a
number of factors such as the applicants character and reputation,
forfeiture of other bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.
When a person is charged with an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is a matter of
discretion. Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states: No person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be
admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal action.
Consequently, when the accused is charged with an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the judge is mandated to
conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the
court, not only to take into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, but primarily to determine the existence of
strong evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused.
Respondent judge, in two instances, granted bail to an accused
charged with murder, without having conducted any hearing as to whether
the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
As held in Basco vs. Rapatalo, the judge is mandated to conduct a
hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a
comment or leave the application of bail to the sound discretion of the
court. A hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail. The
importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases wherein
the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or
fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory for
the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching questions from which it
may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the
accused.
The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as the determination of
whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a
matter of judicial discretion, it may rightly be exercised only after the
evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is
directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot properly be
weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious
that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of
guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross
examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal.
The fact that Criminal Case 07-874 was subsequently dismissed by

Judge Alameda does not completely exculpate Judge Catral. The judge is
not bound by the recommendation of the prosecutor and the affidavits and
sworn statements of the witnesses are mere hearsay statements which
could hardly be the basis for determining whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong. The procedural lapse of the judge
is aggravated by the fact that even though the accused in Criminal Case
07-874 (People v. Ahmed Duerme), have yet to be arrested, respondent
already fixed bail in the sum of P200,000.00. The right to bail can only be
availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived
of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a
petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
Be that as it may, the Court reiterates the following duties of the
trial judge in case an application for bail is filed:
1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the
prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to
submit his recommendation;
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application
for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of
enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion;
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary
of evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
approval of the bailbond. Otherwise petition should be denied
SUPREME COURT RULING:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Judge Segundo B.
Catral is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine P20,000.00 with the WARNING that
a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.

Cortes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cortes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cortes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCTRINE:

The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in

The judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where

In his comment dated August 16, 1996, respondent judge branded

ISSUE OF THE CASE

COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS

A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging

accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with the

The fact that Criminal Case 07-874 was subsequently dismissed by

SUPREME COURT RULING:

You might also like