Rule 114: BAIL

MABUTAS v. PERELLO (2005)

Facts:
Two (2) Administrative cases were filed against Judge Norma Perello (JP) where she both
allowed bail. The first case was for the possession, custody, and control of shabu by Aiza
Omadan while the second case was for 2 criminal cases on the selling of shabu by Rosemarie
Pascual, Rolando Uy, and Mary Regencia. In the second case, bail proceedings were
conducted without the requisite hearing, JP justifying that shabu is not a dangerous drug
and as such the selling of shabu is punishable only with impirsonment of 12-20 years,
therefore bail is a matter of right and a hearing is not required.

Issue/Held:
W/N JP erred in grainting bail?
1st admin case NO
2nd admin case YES
Hearing on an application of bail is MANDATORY. Whether bail is a matter of right
or discretionary, the prosecutor should be given reasonable notice of hearing, or at least his
recommendation on the matter must be sought. (Sec. 18) After the hearing, the courts
order granting/refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution.
JPs argument that shabu is a controlled precursor and not a dangerous drug is
UNTENABLE. Jrisprudence has always considered shaby as a dangerous drug and as such its
sale is punishable by life imprisonment to death (Sec. 5 (1), RA 9165/Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act). As a capital offense, the Judge must hold a hearing on
petitions/motions for bail filed by the accused to determine whether evidence of guilt is
strong.
1st admin case DISMISSED. 2nd admin case JP GUILTY of gross ignorance of law.


LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS (2010)

Facts:
Jose Leviste was charged with Murder and was convicted by RTC Makati for homicide and
sentenced to PM[min]-RP[max-12yrs&1day]. Pending appeal, JL filed an urgent application
for admission to bail citign advanced age, health condition, and absence of any flight risk but
this was denied. JL argues that CA committed GADALEJ for denial of his application for bail
given that none of the conditions for denial under Sec 5 was present.

Issue/Held:
W/N absence of any circumstance mentioned in Sec. 5 (3) would mean that bail should
authomatically be granted. NO
A finding that none of the circumstances is present will NOT automatically result in
a grant of bail for such would simpy authorize the court to use less stingent sound discretion
approach. Note also that the paragraph states the following or OTHER SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Pending appeal of conviction by RTC of offense not punishable by D/RP/LI,
admission to bail is DISCRETIONARY. RTC changing nature of offense from non-bailable
(Murder) to bailable (Homicide) is lodged at CA, thus CA has jurisdiction. Also, if the court
imposed a penalty exceeding 6 years, bail is a matter of discretion.
After conviction by RTC, the presumption of innocence and right to bail terminates
and from then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.
Petition DISMISSED.


DOMINGO v. PAGAYATAN (2003)

Facts:
Andrea Domingo (BOI Commissioner) charged Exec. Judge Ernesto Pagayatan (RTC Occ.
Mindoro) with gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to Ernesto Penaflorida (US
Citizen, undocumented and overstaying alien in violation of the PH Immigration Act and
indicted in US for health care fraud) after the issuance of BOI Board of Commissioners of a
Summary Deportation Order (SDO) of which he was not aware of. Initially, JEP denied the
bail recommended by the Provincial Prosecutor on the ground that Estafa is a non-bailable
offense but he later on granted bail due to lack of readiness of the prosecution to present
any witnesses to prove that evidence of guilt was strong.

Issue/Held:
W/N JEP is giulty of gross ignorance of the law for not conducting a hearing before granting
EPs motion for bail? YES
A hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion.
JEP granted bail to EP without conducting a hearing despite earlier pronouncement in
denying bail. A hearing is required even when the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence of
fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail and is necessary to take into
consideration the guidelines in fixing the amoung of bail (Sec. 9).
JEPs lack of knowledge will only free him from administrative liability for gross
misconduct but not for gross ignorance of law for diregarding the rule on bail which carries it
with the penalty of either dismissal from service, suspension, or a fine. But since JEP is not in
bad faith/without malice, only a fine is imposed.
JEP GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and FINED P5k. STERNLY WARNED.


LACHICA v. TORMIS (2005)

Facts:
Trinidad Lachica filed a complaint against Judge Rosabella Tormis (MTC Cebu City) for
having received cash bail and as a result calling the police station that a certain Domugho
had already posted a cash bail bond with her and may already be released. TL found out that
there was no record whatsoever of any Order of Release from JRT was received by the police
and it was only a day after that she was shown a copy thereof.

Issue/Held:
W/N JRT is guilty of grave misconduct? YES
JRT personally received the cash bail bond for D thus making her administratively
liable for only the BIR Collector or provincial/municipal/city treasurer may receive as deposit
the cash bail bond.
SERAPIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2003)

Facts: