Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in two murder cases without first conducting hearings. Bail requires a hearing to determine the strength of evidence and ensure the presence of the accused. It can only be granted to those in custody. While the amount is at the court's discretion, it must be done in accordance with the law and after giving the prosecution a chance to present evidence. The court administrator recommended dismissing the complaint, but the Supreme Court found Judge Catral guilty for failing to hold the required hearings before granting bail.
Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in two murder cases without first conducting hearings. Bail requires a hearing to determine the strength of evidence and ensure the presence of the accused. It can only be granted to those in custody. While the amount is at the court's discretion, it must be done in accordance with the law and after giving the prosecution a chance to present evidence. The court administrator recommended dismissing the complaint, but the Supreme Court found Judge Catral guilty for failing to hold the required hearings before granting bail.
Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in two murder cases without first conducting hearings. Bail requires a hearing to determine the strength of evidence and ensure the presence of the accused. It can only be granted to those in custody. While the amount is at the court's discretion, it must be done in accordance with the law and after giving the prosecution a chance to present evidence. The court administrator recommended dismissing the complaint, but the Supreme Court found Judge Catral guilty for failing to hold the required hearings before granting bail.
Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in two murder cases without first conducting hearings. Bail requires a hearing to determine the strength of evidence and ensure the presence of the accused. It can only be granted to those in custody. While the amount is at the court's discretion, it must be done in accordance with the law and after giving the prosecution a chance to present evidence. The court administrator recommended dismissing the complaint, but the Supreme Court found Judge Catral guilty for failing to hold the required hearings before granting bail.
(1) Definition of Bail, (2) Bail as a Matter of Judicial Discretion, (3)
Requirement of Custody of Law, (4) Fixing Bail
Facts:
1. A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging Judge
Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gross Ignorance of the Law
2. Complainant’s Allegations:
a. Judge Catral granted bail in 2 murder cases without hearing in
People v. Duerme and People v. Bunganglag.
b. Judge Catral reduced the bailbond of Brgy. Capt. Rodolfo
Castañeda’s criminal case for Illegal Possession of Firearm from P180,000 to P30,000. no hearing has been made from 1995 to the present because according to his clerks, he is holding it in abeyance. Castañeda is one of the goons of Julio “Bong” Decierto, his nephew who has a pending murder case.
c. Another Brgy. Capt. Nilo de Rivera (another goon of Decierto),
with a homicide case was granted with a bailbond of P14,800.00 by Judge Catral
3. Respondent’s Claims:
a. Judge Catral stresses that the provincial prosecutor
recommended P200,000.00 as bailbond for each of the accused in the case of Duerme and the court issued an order for reduction of the bailbond to P50,000.00.
b. In the murder case of Bumanglag, the inquest judge issued a
warrant of arrest for the accused with no bail recommended and when it was elevated to the RTC upon information filed by the provincial prosecutor, the information made no mention of a bailbond. In the hearing of the petition to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and recommended bail in the sum of P200,000.00 instead.
c. Brgy. Capt. Castañeda filed a motion for reduction of the bailbond
from P180,000 to P30,000. The motion for reduction of bailbond was submitted without serious opposition.
d. Brgy. Capt. de Rivero’s bailbond of P14,800.00 was recommended
by the OIC provincial prosecutor
4. The Office of the Court Administrator
a. recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Judge
Catral
b. the increase or reduction of bail rests in the sound discretion of
the court depending upon the particular circumstances of the case
c. the reduction in the amount of bail of the accused in the criminal
cases in question were all done by the respondent with the knowledge and conformity of the Public Prosecutor concerned
d. the actions taken by the respondent were in the exercise of
judicial discretion that may not be assailed in an administrative proceedings
Issue:
Whether or not bail can be granted without hearing
Held:
1. No.
2. Definition and Purpose of Bail:
Bail 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. It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to conviction.
Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each
case. The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with the constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive. Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number of factors such as the applicant's character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.
3. Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court
"No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal action."
When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court primarily to determine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused
4. Bail as a Matter of Judicial Discretion:
Inasmuch as the determination of whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, it may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal. 5. The court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution, otherwise the order granting or denying bail may be invalidated because the summary of the evidence for the prosecution which contains the judge's evaluation of the evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense.
6. Requirement of Custody of Law
The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in
custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
Judge Catral already fixed bail in the sum of P200,000.00 even
though Duerme was yet to be arrested
7. Fixing Bail:
As long as in fixing the amount of bail, the court is guided by the
purpose for which bail is required, that is, to secure the appearance of the accused to answer charges brought against him, the decision of the court to grant bail in the sum it deems appropriate will not be interfered with.
8. Judge Segundo B. Catral is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law
for having granted bail to the accused in People v. Duerme and People v. Bunganglag without having conducted the requisite hearing.