Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Legal Philo Case

    Uploaded by

    Rham Villanueva
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's petition for bail. The petitioner, Pio Duran, was a political prisoner detained for over 3 months without charges. At a hearing on his bail petition, the special prosecutor alleged the petitioner had collaborated with Japanese occupiers, which the petitioner did not deny. Based on these allegations of treasonous activities and the strong evidence presented, the Court found the respondent judge was justified in denying bail given the seriousness of the capital offense charged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Legal Philo Case

    Uploaded by

    Rham Villanueva
    75 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's petition for bail. The petitioner, Pio Duran, was a political prisoner detained for over 3 months without charges. At a hearing on his bail petition, the special prosecutor alleged the petitioner had collaborated with Japanese occupiers, which the petitioner did not deny. Based on these allegations of treasonous activities and the strong evidence presented, the Court found the respondent judge was justified in denying bail given the seriousness of the capital offense charged.

    Original Title

    legal philo case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's petition for bail. The petitioner, Pio Duran, was a political prisoner detained for over 3 months without charges. At a hearing on his bail petition, the special prosecutor alleged the petitioner had collaborated with Japanese occupiers, which the petitioner did not deny. Based on these allegations of treasonous activities and the strong evidence presented, the Court found the respondent judge was justified in denying bail given the seriousness of the capital offense charged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    75 views2 pages

    Legal Philo Case

    Uploaded by

    Rham Villanueva
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's petition for bail. The petitioner, Pio Duran, was a political prisoner detained for over 3 months without charges. At a hearing on his bail petition, the special prosecutor alleged the petitioner had collaborated with Japanese occupiers, which the petitioner did not deny. Based on these allegations of treasonous activities and the strong evidence presented, the Court found the respondent judge was justified in denying bail given the seriousness of the capital offense charged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ramon Devilles Villanueva Jr.

    Cleo Andrea Dianson


    AB Political Science 4A

    PIO DURAN v. Salvador Abad Santos


    ( G.R. No. L-99, November 16, 1945 )

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Pio Duran is a Filipino political prisoner under the custody of the Director of Prisons in the
    New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa Rizal for not less than three months without any information of having
    filed against him. He filed a petition for his release on bail with the People’s Court. Solicitor General
    recommended that the petitioner be provisionally release on P35,000.00 bail. After hearing the statements
    of Special Prosecutor V.D Carpio, in representation of the Solicitor General and Atty. Marciano Almario,
    counsel for the petitioner, Judge Salvador Abad Santos denied the petition for bail on October 12, 1945
    and refused to reconsider his order although not stating any reason on the issued on October 15, 1945.

    The denial of the petition is a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the Philippines and of Section 19 of
    Commonwealth Act No. 682 and that the judge has committed grave abuse of discretion for which
    petitioner has no other plain speedy and adequate remedy in ordinary course of law.

    The respondent judge denies abuse of discretion and stated the reason for denying the petitioner for bail
    on his order on October 15, 1945 and the grounds are “the detainee’s adherence to the enemy as
    manifested by his utterances and activities during the Japanese domination historical facts of
    contemporary history and of public knowledge which the petitioner cannot deny makes the case against
    him quite serious and may the necessitate the imposition of the capital punishment”.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion for denying the
    petitioner’s petition to bail as pursuant to section 19 of Commonwealth Act No.682?

    RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE DECISION:


    • Pursuant to section 19 of Commonwealth Act. No. 682
    …Provided however, That existing provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the aforesaid
    political prisoners may, in the discretion of the People’s court, after due notice to the Office of
    Special Prosecutors and hearing, be released on bail, even prior to the presentation of the
    corresponding information, unless the Court, finds that there is strong evidence of the commission of
    a capital offense…
    The recital by the special prosecutor of the supposed acts committed by the petitioner and referred to by
    the respondent judge in his order of October 15, 1945, above quoted which acts were not rebutted by
    counsel for the petitioner at the hearing on the petition for bail, supports the conclusion and ruling of the
    People’s court.

    • The petitioner denied the imputation that the petitioner was the Executive General of the
    “Makapili,” but he openly admitted that at the hearing before the People’s Court he did not make
    any effort to deny or disprove the said imputation or the others appearing in Appendix E of the
    petition. In view thereof, how can we expect the People’s Court not to take into consideration
    what had been stated then, appearing in said Appendix E?
    Counsel’s contention that there was strong have presented evidence to prove that there was strong
    evidence of the commission of a capital offense before People’s Could deny bail in this case was
    substantially complied with, although the information charging the commission of the crime of treason
    had not as yet been filed. We are of the opinion and so hold that hearing set and held for the purpose was
    amply sufficient for the People’s Court to be informed and to determine whether there was strong
    evidence of the commission of a capital offense.

    In view of the foregoing, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has been deprived of his liberty without
    due process of law, because his petition for bail had been set for hearing and he was given an opportunity
    to be heard when the above circumstances were submitted to the People’s Court, where it was made to
    appear satisfactorily that he was being detained due to highly treasonable activities against
    Commonwealth of the Philippines and the United States, which activities would be charged in the
    information for a capital offense and punishable by death, and that evidence in the case is strong.

    HELD: NO.

    WHEREFORE, Petitioner was charged for treason which is the “highest of all crimes”

    You might also like