Case 11

People vs Alicando
GR No. 117487
December 12, 1995
Facts:
Arnel Alicando was charged of the crime of rape with homicide for raping a 4 year old girl named, Khazie
Mae Penecilla. The records show that appellant was arrested and interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. The
accused verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel. The trial court convicted Alicando
with the crimes and charged sentencing him death penalty thus; the case is submitted to the Supreme
Court for automatic review.
Issue:
Whether or not admission of guilt made without the presence of counsel is valid
Held:
The evidence gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan as a result of the custodial investigation is inadmissible
because appellant verbally confessed without the benefit of counsel.
As provided in Section 12(1) and (3) Article 3 of the Constitution any person under investigation for a
commission of an offense have the right to xxx have competent and independent counsel xxx; any
confession or admission obtained in violation of this and preceding section shall be inadmissible against
him
We are equally committed to the ideal that the process of detection, apprehension, conviction, and
incarceration of criminals should be accomplished with fairness and without impinging on the dignity of
the individual .
Case 12
BASCO vs RAPATALO
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335.
March 5, 1997
FACTS:
Petitioner Inocencio Basco filed a complaint against respondent Judge Leo H. Rapatalo of RTC, Branch
32 of Agoo, La Union for 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.
Basco is the father of the victim of a murder by three men. There were three accused men; one of them is
Roger Morente. Roger Morente filed for a petition for bail. A hearing for the petition was set for several
times but did not push through.
After allegedly seeing Morente in Rosario, La Union, the petitioner learned that the respondent Judge
granted the Morentes petition for bail even though the petition was not heard at all.
The Judge alleged that he granted the petition based on the prosecutors option not to oppose the petition
as well as the latters recommendation setting the bail bond in the amount of P80,000.00. Respondent
said that when the prosecution chose not to oppose the petition for bail, he had the discretion on whether
to approve it or not. The respondent approved the petition for bail based on his presumption that the
prosecutor was more familiar with the case and more knowledgeable on what he was doing since the
latter conducted the preliminary investigation. The respondent further added that when he approved the
petition, he presumed that the private prosecutor was not around at the time the public prosecutor
recommended bail.Eventually, Morentes bail bond was cancelled. A warrant of arrest was issued on
account of Bascos motion for consideration. Morente is then confined in the La Union Provincial Jail.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a Judge can grant a petition for bail without a hearing for such.
HELD:
No, a judge cannot grant a petition for bail without a trial.
Since the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt of 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 of bail to the discretion of the court .

1.
2.
3.
4.

The Supreme Court reiterated the following rules outlining the duties of a judge in case an application for
bail is set:
Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended).
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 discretion (Sections 7 and 8, supra).
Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence
of the prosecution (Baylon v. Sison, supra).
If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond.
(Section 19, supra). Otherwise, petition should be denied.
While it may be true that the respondent Judge set the application for bail for hearing three times, thus
showing lack of malice or bad faith in granting bail to the accused, nonetheless, this does not completely
exculpate him because the fact remains that a hearing has not actually been conducted in violation of his
duty to determine whether or not the evidence against the accused is strong for purposes of bail.
The Judge is reprimanded with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will
be dealt with more severely.
CASE 14
PEOPLE VS. FORTES
G.R. NO. 90643
JUN 25,1993
Facts:
This case is about the conviction of Agustin Fortes y Garra for the rape of a young girl. Agripino
Gine of Barangay Naburacan, Municipality of Matnog, Province of Sorsogon, accompanied his 13-year
old daughter, Merelyn, to the police station of the said municipality to report a rape committed against the
latter by the accused. Following this, the accused was apprehended and charged. The bond for the
accuseds temporary liberty was initially fixed at P30,000.00 but was later reduced to P25,000.00 upon
motion of the accused. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) found him guilty. An appeal to the RTC
was filed and the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The accused filed again an Application for Bail on
Appeal but was denied. The accused later on filed a special civil action for certiorari to the Supreme
Court for the denial of RTC on the ground that the same amounted to an undue denial of his constitutional
right to bail.
Issue:
Whether or not the accuseds right to bail has been violated.

Held:
No. It is clear from Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3, Rule 114 of the
Revised Rules of Court, as amended, that before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of discretion.
It is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua. To that extent the right is absolute. If the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua
bail becomes a matter of discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The court's
discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is determined that
the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.
The clear implication, therefore is that if an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a
matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court . In such a situation, the
court would not have only determined that the evidence of guilt is strong, which would have been
sufficient to deny bail even before conviction, it would have likewise ruled that the accused's guilt has
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the
pendency of his appeal from the judgment of conviction.
CASE 15
COMMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA
G.R. No. 93177, Aug. 2, 1991
Facts:
The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 who are officers of the AFP were directed to appear in
person before the Pre-Trial Investigating Officers for the alleged participation in the failed coup d etat on
December 1 to 9, 1989. Petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial investigation of the charges as
mandated by Article of War 71. A motion for dismissal was denied. Now, their motion for reconsideration.
Alleging denial of due process.
In G.R. No. 95020, Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5, 1990, but the application was denied by
GCM No.14. He filed with the RTC a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional
liberty and a writ of preliminary injunction. Judge of GCM then granted the provisional liberty. However he
was not released immediately. The RTC now declared that even military men facing court martial
proceedings can avail the right to bail.
The private respondents in G.R. No. 97454 filed with SC a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that
they were being detained in Camp Crame without charges. The petition was referred to RTC. Finding
after hearing that no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more than a year after
their arrest, the trial court ordered their release.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not there was a denial of due process.
(2) Whether or not there was a violation of the accused right to bail.
Held:
NO denial of due process. Petitioners were given several opportunities to present their side at the pre-trial
investigation. Instead, they filed a verbal motion for reconsideration which they were again asked to
submit in writing. They had been expressly warned in the subpoena that "failure to submit counteraffidavits on the date specified shall be deemed a waiver of their right to submit controverting evidence."
Petitioners have a right to peremptory challenge.

The right to bail invoked by the private respondents has traditionally not been recognized and is not
available in the military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. The right to a
speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.
On the contention that they had not been charged after more than one year from their arrest, there was
substantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speedy trial. The AFP
Special Investigating Committee was able to complete the pre-charge investigation only after one year
because hundreds of officers and thousands of enlisted men were involved in the failed coup.
Accordingly, in G.R. No. 93177, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. In G.R. No. 96948, the petition
is granted, and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory
challenge under article 18 of the articles of war. In G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, the petitions are also
granted, and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby
reversed and set aside. No costs.