Petition for bail; Rule 65; Duties of the Court in a Petition for Bail
RE: Petition for bail; Rule 65; Duties of the Court in a Petition for Bail
In a petition for bail, the Court is only mandated to determine whether based on the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, proof evident exists or the presumption of guilt is strong.
The Court's certiorari jurisdiction covers only errors of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan. It should be borne in mind that not every error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Errors in the appreciation of the parties' evidence, including the conclusions anchored on these findings, are not correctible by the writ of certiorari.
[Here], In this regard, Napoles bears the burden of showing that the Sandiganbayan's denial of her bail application was capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic, so as to amount to grave abuse of discretion. This Court is not a trier of facts. As such, it must be established that there was a patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law.
Despite the arrest of the accused, or his/her voluntary surrender as the case may be, the accused may be granted provisional liberty under certain conditions. This right to bail is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, except when the accused is charged with a capital offense, viz.:
“Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required[.]”
While· bail may generally be granted as a matter of right prior to the conviction of the accused, those charged with a capital offense is granted bail only when the evidence of guilt is not strong:
“Section 7. Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. - No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (7a)1”
The trial court is thus granted the discretion to determine whether there is strong evidence of guilt on the part of the accused. The trial court may also deny the application for bail when the accused is a flight risk, notwithstanding the prosecution's evidence on the guilt of the accused.2
In exercising this discretion, the trial court should receive the parties' evidence at a hearing duly scheduled for this purpose. The prosecution and the accused are granted reasonable opportunity to prove their respective positions: on the part of the prosecution, that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong, and on the part of the defense, the opposite.3 The hearing is summary and limited to the determination of the weight of evidence for purposes of granting or denying bail. The denial or refusal must be supported by a summary of the prosecution's evidence.4
In Cortes v. Catral, this Court laid down the following duties of the trial court in cases of an application for bail:
"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 (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended);
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; (Sections 7 and 8, supra).
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 bail bond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied."
FOOTNOTES
1 Id. at Rule 114, Section 7; See also Rule 114, Section 5.
2 People v. Sandiganbayan, 556 Phil. 596, 603-604 (2007).
3 Santos v. Ofilada, 315 Phil. 11 (1995); See also Basco v. Rapatalo, 336 Phil. 214 (1997).
4 Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 385 Phil. 208, 221 (2000).
JANET LIM NAPOLES, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), G.R. No. 224162, November 7, 2017
Read full text @ https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/nov2017/gr_224162_2017.html
Comments
Post a Comment