Garcia vs. Florido, G.R. No. L-30595, Aug. 31, 1975

Group #
Criminal Procedure
Section 10
Hon. Phillip Charles G. Santos
RULE #
GERMAN C. GARCIA, LUMINOSA L. GARCIA, and ESTER FRANCISCO, petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE MARIANO M. FLORIDO OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, MARCELINO INESIN, RICARDO VAYSON, MACTAN
TRANSIT CO., INC., and PEDRO TUMALA Y DIGAL, respondents
Facts
 Petitioner was charged in amended information as a conspirator with the crime of
multiple murder for killing of members of the Bucag family. The trial of the base was all
set to start with the issuance of arrest warrant for the petitioner's apprehension but before
it could be served the petitioner filed a motion for admission to bail with the trial court
which is set for hearing on the same day.
 As the petitioner was confined his counsel manifested that they were submitting custody
over the person of their client to the local chapter president of IBP and that, for the
purpose of said hearing of his bail application he considered being in the custody of the
law. On the other hand, the prosecution was neither supporting nor opposing the
application for bail and they were submitting the same to the sound discretion of the trial
judge.
 Upon further inquiries from the trial court, Prosecutor Acejo announced that he would be
waiving any further presentation of evidence. On that note, the trial court admitted the
petitioner to bail in the amount of P200,000. The next day the petitioner, apparently still
weak but well enough to travel managed to personally appear before the clerk of court of
the trial court and posted bail in the amount fixed. He was thereafter arraigned and in the
trial that ensued, her also personally appeared and attended all scheduled court hearings.
.
Issue:
WHETHER or NOT the grant of bail was tainted with grave abuse of discretion
Ruling:
NO. On the undispited facts, legal priciples the court find for the petitioner:
a. Section 1 of Rule 114, as amended, defines bail as the security given for the release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearing before any court as
required under the conditions specified in said Rule. Its main purpose, then, is to relieve an accused from
the rigors of imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial. As bail is
intended to obtain or secure one's provisional liberty, the same cannot be posted before custody over him
Group #
Criminal Procedure
Section 10
Hon. Phillip Charles G. Santos
RULE #
has been acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his lawful arrest or voluntary surrender. As this
Court has put it in a case "it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free.
As a paramount requisite then, only those persons who have either been arrested, detained, or otherwise
deprived of their freedom will ever have occasion to seek the protective mantle extended by the right to
bail. The person seeking his provisional release under the auspices of bail need not even wait for a formal
complaint or information to be filed against him as it is available to "all persons" where the offense is
bailable. The rule is, of course, subject to the condition or limitation that the applicant is in the custody of
the law.
A person is considered to be in the custody of the law (a) when he is arrested either by virtue of a warrant
of arrest issued pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112, or by warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 in
relation to Section 7, Rule 112 of the revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, or (b) when he has voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
In the case herein it may be conceded that he had filed his motion for admission to bail before he was
actually and physically placed under arrest. However at that point and in factual ambience, therefore, be
considered as being constructively and legally under custody.
The undeniable fact is that the petitioner was by then in the constructive custody of the law. Apparently,
both the trial court and the prosecutors agreed on that point since they never attempted to have him
physically restrained. Through his lawyers, he expressly submitted to physical and legal control over his
person, firstly, by filing the application for bail with the trial court; secondly, by furnishing true information
of his actual whereabouts; and, more importantly, by unequivocally recognizing the jurisdiction of the said
court.
The general rule is that prior to conviction by the regional trial court of a criminal offense, an accused is
entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, the present exceptions thereto being the instances
where the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. Under said general rule, upon proper application for
admission to bail, the court having custody of the accused should, as a matter of course, grant the same
after a hearing conducted to specifically determine the conditions of the bail in accordance with Section 6
(now, Section 2) of Rule 114. On the other hand, as the grant of bail becomes a matter of judicial
discretion on the part of the court under the exceptions to the rule, a hearing, mandatory in nature and
which should be summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, is required with the participation of
both the defense and a duly notified representative of the prosecution, this time to ascertain whether or
not the evidence of guilt is strong for the provisional liberty of the applicant. Of course, the burden of proof
is on the prosecution to show that the evidence meets the required quantum

Garcia vs. Florido, G.R. No. L-30595, Aug. 31, 1975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia vs. Florido, G.R. No. L-30595, Aug. 31, 1975

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Garcia vs. Florido, G.R. No. L-30595, Aug. 31, 1975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group #

GERMAN C. GARCIA, LUMINOSA L. GARCIA, and ESTER FRANCISCO, petitioners,

You might also like