Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 126 views

    1.) Basco vs. Rapatalo

    Uploaded by

    Felix Diaz
    This document discusses a case where a judge granted bail to an accused murderer without holding a hearing. It was alleged that the bail petition was not heard at all before bail was granted. The court ruled that for cases involving capital offenses, the judge must conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong before granting bail.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1.) Basco vs. Rapatalo

    Uploaded by

    Felix Diaz
    126 views2 pages
    This document discusses a case where a judge granted bail to an accused murderer without holding a hearing. It was alleged that the bail petition was not heard at all before bail was granted. The court ruled that for cases involving capital offenses, the judge must conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong before granting bail.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses a case where a judge granted bail to an accused murderer without holding a hearing. It was alleged that the bail petition was not heard at all before bail was granted. The court ruled that for cases involving capital offenses, the judge must conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong before granting bail.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    126 views2 pages

    1.) Basco vs. Rapatalo

    Uploaded by

    Felix Diaz
    This document discusses a case where a judge granted bail to an accused murderer without holding a hearing. It was alleged that the bail petition was not heard at all before bail was granted. The court ruled that for cases involving capital offenses, the judge must conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong before granting bail.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1.) BASCO VS.

    RAPATALO
    Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 March 5, 1997

    ROMERO, J.:
    PREPARED BY: MA. STEFANIE REI PICAR

    RIGHT TO BAIL

    FACTS:

    Judge Leo Rapatalo - RTC Agoo, La Union (respondent) was charged with with gross
    ignorance or willful disregard of established rule of law for granting bail to an accused in
    a murder case without receiving evidence and conducting a hearing.

    It was alleged by the complainant, father’s victim in the crime of murder against Roger
    Morente, that Morente filed a petition for bail. The hearing was set and reset for several
    time but did not materialize. He later learned that the accused was out on bail despite
    the fact that the petition had not been heard at all. Upon investigation, complainant
    discovered that bail had been granted and a release order was issued. The bail petition
    was signed by the assistant prosecutor and by the respondent Judge.

    The respondent Judge contended that hat he granted the petition based on the
    prosecutor’s option not to oppose the petition as well as the latter’s recommendation
    setting the bail bond in the amount of P80,000.00. He also stated in his comment that
    he has the discretion on whether to approve it or not, and that he had the right to
    presume that the prosecutor knew what he was doing since he was more familiar with
    the case.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the application for bail must be heard

    RULING:

    YES. The court explained the nature of “Bail” which 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. In
    other words, if the denial of bail is authorized in capital offenses, it is only in theory that
    the proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than
    face the verdict of the court. Hence the exception to the fundamental right to be bailed
    should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of probability of evasion of the prosecution.
    In practice, bail has also been used to prevent the release of an accused who might
    otherwise be dangerous to society or whom the judges might not want to release. With
    the said practical function of bail, it is understood that there is an exception to the right
    to bail when the crime charged is punishable with death, life imprisonment or reclusion
    perpetua.

    When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that
    the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. However, the determination of
    whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion,
    remains with the judge.

    It was also reiterated by the judge that it is mandatory for a judge to conduct a hearing
    as decided in many other cases. Consequently, in the application for bail of a person
    charged with a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
    imprisonment, a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court,
    must actually be conducted to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the
    accused is strong.

    Since the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is
    strong is a matter of judicial discretion, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even
    in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application
    for bail to the discretion of the court.

    You might also like