Republic of the Philippines

~an~ilVtnhallanQuezon City

FIFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus -

NERISSA CORAZON SOON-RUIZ,ET AL.,

Accused.)( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus -

NERISSA CORAZON SOON-RUIZ,ET AL.,

Accused.

SB-19-CRM-0066For: Violation of Section 3(e)ofR.A. No. 3019, as amended

SB-19-CRM-0082For: Malversation of PublicFunds under Article 217 of theRevised Penal Code, asamended

Present:

LAGOS, J, Chairperson,MENDOZA-ARCEGA, andCORPUS-MANALAC, JJ

Promulgated:

June 13, 201~ 9&!J)( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

RESOLUTION

CORPUS-MAN-ALAC, J.:

Before this Court are two separate Urgent Ex-Parte Motions toReduce Bail (With Entry of Appearance), both dated May 24,2019, filed byaccused Margie T. Luz, through counsel, on even date, praying for thereduction of the recommended bail amounts from PhP90,000.00 toPhP25,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0066, and from PhP200,000.00 toPhP50,000.00 in S8-19-CRM-0082.

~I

ResolutionSB-19-CRM-0066 & 0082People v. Soon-Ruiz, et al.x-----------------x

2

In both motions, accused Luz avers the same reasons, such as thepresent cases arising from the same incident, not being gainfully employed,and not being a flight risk, thus:

3. [D]ue to unavailability of funds considering that Accused hasalso been charged involving the same incident before this Honorable Courtdocketed as a separate case wherein the recommended bail bond was set ata substantial amount as well, Accused is constrained to request for areduction of the amount of bail;

4. Accused is no longer gainfully employed, but an artist with nofixed income or salary. Moreover, accused is definitely NOT A FLIGHTRISK as despite the pendency of other cases before the Sandiganbayan,she has never attempted to evade prosecution through flight [.]I(Capitalization in the original)

On June 6, 2019, the prosecution filed its Comment dated June 4,2019, praying that the motions be partially granted only and that accusedLuz be ordered to post bail in the amounts ofPhP45,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0066 and PhPI00,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0082 in cash. The prosecutionargues that, apart from the instant cases, accused Luz is currently facing onlyfour (4) other pending criminal cases before the Third Division ofSandiganbayan (i.e., two counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.30192 and two counts of malversation, all docketed as SB-17-CRM-0663 to0666), and that eight (8) other criminal cases' against her had already beendismissed.

After considering the circumstances herein, the Court partially grantsthe motions and fixes the amounts of bail at PhP30,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0066 and PhP50,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0082.

Section 1, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court states the purpose for whichbail is required:

Section 1. Bail defined. - Bail is the security given for the releaseof a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, toguarantee his appearance before any court as required under theconditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form ofcorporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. (Emphasissupplied)

Section 9 of Rule 114 provides the guidelines in fixing a reasonableamount of bail:

I Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Reduce Bail (SB-19-CRM-0066), pp. 1-2; Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to ReduceBail (SB-19-CRM-0082), pp. 1-2.2 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.3 Comment, p. 1 (SB-16-CRM-0054 to 0056, SB-16-CRM-0694 to 0695, and SB-17-CRM-0161 to 0163,all either for violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019, malversation, falsification, or malversation throughfalsification).

ResolutionSB-19-CRM-0066 & 0082People v. Soon-Ruiz, et al.x-----------------x

3

Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. - The judge who issued thewarrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bailconsidering primarily, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) Financial liability of the accused to give bail;(b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;(c) Penalty for the offense charged;(d) Character and reputation of the accused;(e) Age and health of the accused;(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;(h) Forfeiture of other bail;(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice whenarrested; and(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.

Excessive bail shall not be required.

In Villasehor v. Albano.: from which the foregoing guidelines havebeen culled, the Supreme Court made this seminal pronouncement:

Expressions in varying, language spell out in a general way theprinciples governing bail fixing. One is that the amount should be highenough to assure the presence of defendant when required but no higherthan is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Another is that "thegood of the public as well as the rights of the accused," and "the need for atie to the jurisdiction and the right to freedom from unnecessary restraintbefore conviction under the circumstances surrounding each particularaccused," should all be balanced in one equation.

We are not to consider solely the inability of a defendant to securebail in a certain amount. This circumstance by itself does not make theamount excessive. For, where an accused has no means of his own, no oneto bail him out, or none to turn to for premium payments, any amountfixed no matter how small would fall into the category of excessive bail;and, he "would be entitled to be discharged on his recognizance."

xxxx

But, at bottom, in bail fixing, "the principal factorconsidered, to the determination of which most other factors aredirected, is the probability of the appearance of the accused, or of hisflight to avoid punishment." Of importance then is the possible penaltythat may be meted. Of course, penalty depends to a great extent upon thegravity of offense. (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)

It bears to stress that accused Luz is entitled to bail in these cases as amatter of right, since the prescribed penalty for a violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 is not less than six (6) years and one (1) month nor more thanfifteen (15) years of imprisonment," while that for malversation of publicfunds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, is

4 G.R ..No. L-23599, 29 September 1967.5 R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 9(a).

ResolutionSB-19-CRM-0066 & 0082People v. Soon-Ruiz, et al.x-----------------x

4

imprisonment for reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusionperpetual' considering that the involved amount here exceeds PhP22,000.00(more than PhP8.820 million).

Despite having to face a number of criminal cases before theSandiganbayan, whether some of them had already been dismissed, accusedLuz had posted the necessary bail bonds and complied with the conditions ofthe bail, the foremost of which is her appearance whenever required by theCourt. Indeed, even the prosecution has not countered her claim that she isnot a flight risk, or that the prosecution has not propounded any allegationthat she has exhibited any conduct that may be construed as probability offlight to avoid punishment.

Thus, the Court deems the amounts of PhP30,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0066 and PhP50,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0082 sufficient to guaranteeaccused Luz's appearance before this Court as required under the conditionsof the bail.

Further, the amounts of bail recommended in the Informations (i.e.,PhP90,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0066 and PhP200,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0082) appear to have been computed pursuant to Department Circular (D.C.)No. 13 dated March 8, 2018 (2018 New Bail Bond Guide), which has beenissued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in view of the enactment of R.A.No. 109517 in 2017 amending certain RPC provisions, whereas both of thecrimes charged were allegedly committed in 2007.

R.A. No. 10951 cannot be applied retroactively to accused Luz,considering that it is not favorable to her" and it did not amend or modifyany special penal law, such as R.A. No. 3019. The Information in SB-19-CRM-0082 avers that the amount malversed was at least PhP8,820,000.00,thus the prescribed penalty therefor has increased from reclusion temporal inits maximum period to reclusion perpetua, under the old provision, toreclusion perpetua, under R.A. No. 10951, rendering the crime now asgenerally non-bailable.

Section 40, paragraph 5, of R.A. No. 10951, amending Article 217 ofthe RPC on malversation of public funds or property, provides:

5. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, if theamount involved is more than Four million four hundred thousand pesos(P4,400,OOO.00) but does not exceed Eight million eight hundred thousandpesos (P8,800,000.00). If the amount exceeds the latter, the penaltyshall be reclusion perpetua. (Emphasis supplied)

6 Vide People v. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09, 8 December 2015.7 AN ACT ADJUSTTNG THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH APENALTY IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FORTHE PURPOSE ACT NO. 38) 5, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED. q--f• Vide R.A. No. 10951, Sec. 100. r';JJ

ResolutionSB-19-CRM-0066 & 0082People v. Soon-Ruiz, et al.x-----------------x

5

On the other hand, the previous Article 217, paragraph 4, of the sameCode, which was the governing provision at the time of the commission ofthe felony in 2007, as alleged in the Information in SB-19-CRM-0082,states:

4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximumperiods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but isless than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter,the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period toreclusion perpetua. (Emphasis supplied)

Considering that the DOJ issued D.C. No. 13, s. 2018 pursuant to theenactment of R.A. No. 10951, it is then reasonable not to strictly apply the2018 New Bail Bond Guide to the present cases.

In Hernan v. Sandiganbayan.' where the Supreme Court put to taskall the stakeholders in the criminal justice system for the application of R.A.No. 10951, insofar as it is favorable to the accused or convicts, it orderedcounsels for the accused under preventive imprisonment, either where thecases against them are non-bailable or they cannot put up the bail in view ofthe penalties imposable under the old law, to file the necessary pleading foran application for bail:

On a final note, judges, public prosecutors, public attorneys,private counsels, and such other officers of the law are hereby advised tosimilarly apply the provisions of RA No. 10951 whenever it is, byreason of justice and equity, called for by the facts of each case. x x x.For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent legislationshall find application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after thetime when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service ofsentence has already begun. x x x.

Henceforth: (1) x x x; (2) For those cases where the accused areundergoing preventive imprisonment, either the cases against themare non-bailable or cannot put up the bail in view of the penaltiesimposable under the old law, their respective counsels are herebyordered to file the necessary pleading before the proper courts, whetherundergoing trial in the RTC or undergoing appeal in the appellate courtsand apply for bail, for their provisional liberty; x x x. (Emphasissupplied)

The directive in Hernan, therefore, for the counsels for the accused tofile an application for bail necessarily means that the required bail amountthat may be asked of them pursuant to R.A. No. 10951 is lower than theamount in the previous bail bond guide, or that the felony has now becomebailable as a matter of right. This is not the case, however, insofar as accusedLuz is concerned.

9 G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017.

ResolutionSB-19-CRM-0066 & 0082People v. Soon-Ruiz, et at.x-----------------x

6

Under the previous bail bond guide (2000 Bail Bond Guide), therecommended bail amount for a violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019was only P30,000.00, and for malversation of public funds where theamount involved exceeds PhP22,000.00 was merely PhP40,000.00, both ofwhich are significantly lower than the present amounts of PhP90,000.00 andPhP200,000.00, respectively.

For all these reasons, a strict application of the 201S New Bail BondGuide to the present cases may be construed as contrary to justice andequity, for such an instance may improperly burden those who have thecapacity to post the required bail amount under the old bail bond guide, butmay now be placed in a situation similar to the accused persons who cannotput up the bail, as pointed by Hernan, not in view, however, of theprescribed penalties under the old law but, ironically, because of theprescribed penalties under the new law.

In sum, under the foregoing circumstances, the Court holds that thebail amounts of PhP30,000.00 in SB-19-CRM-0066 and PhP50,000.00 inSB-19-CRM-00S2 are sufficient to guarantee accused Luz's appearancebefore this Court in these cases.

WHEREFORE, the two separate Urgent Ex-Parte Motions toReduce Bail, both dated May 24, 2019, of accused Margie T. Luz arePARTIALL Y GRANTED. The accused is now authorized to post bail ofThirty Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00) in SB-19-CRM-0066 and FiftyThousand Pesos (PhP50,000.00) in SB-19-CRM-00S2, provided that saidbail is in the form of cash. The entry of appearance of Bayani LeddaManauis and Associates as counsel for accused Margie T. Luz is NOTED.

SO ORDERED.

MARYANN E. C R US- MAN-ALACAssoci te Justice

WE CONCUR:

~~LAGOSAssociate Justice

Chairperson

A-ARCEGA