Consti 2 Recit

8/19/2019 Consti 2 Recit

1/38

G.R. No. 79269 June 5, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.HON. PROCORO J. DONATO, in hi o!!i"i#$ "#%#"i&' # P(ei)in* Ju)*e, Re*ion#$ T(i#$ Cou(&,

+(#n"h II, -#ni$# RODOLFO C. SALAS, #$i# Co//#n)e( +i$o*, respondents.

The People of the Philippines, through the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, the CityFiscal of Manila and the Judge Advocate eneral, filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohi!ition,"ith a prayer for restraining order#preliminary in$unction, to set aside the order of respondent Judge datedJuly %, &'(% granting !ail to the accused )odolfo Salas alias *Commander +ilog* in Criminal Case o.(-/('0- for )e!ellion,& and the su!se1uent 2rder dated July 34, &'(% granting the motion forreconsideration of &- July &'(% !y increasing the !ail !ond from P34,444.44 to P54,444.44 !ut denyingpetitioner6s supplemental motion for reconsideration of July &%, &'(% "hich as7ed the court to allo"petitioner to present evidence in support of its prayer for a reconsideration of the order of % July &'(%.

The pivotal issues presented !efore 8s are "hether the right to !ail may, under certain circumstances, !edenied to a person "ho is charged "ith an other"ise !aila!le offense, and "hether such right may !e

"aived.

The follo"ing are the antecedents of this petition9

:n the original :nformation0 filed on 0 2cto!er &'(- in Criminal Case o. (-/('0- of the )egional TrialCourt of Manila, later amended in an Amended :nformation3 "hich "as filed on 0/ 2cto!er &'(-, privaterespondent )odolfo Salas, alias *Commander +ilog*, and his coaccused "ere charged for the crime ofre!ellion under Article &3/, in relation to Article &35, of the )evised Penal Code allegedly committed asfollo"s9

That in or a!out &'-( and for some time !efore said year and continuously thereafter until thepresent time, in the City of Manila and else"here in the Philippines, the Communist Party of thePhilippines, its military arm, the e" People6s Army, its mass infiltration net"or7, the ationalDemocratic Front "ith its other su!ordinate organi;ations and fronts, have, under the directionand control of said organi;ations6 leaders, among "hom are the aforenamed accused, and "iththe aid, participation or support of mem!ers and follo"ers "hose "herea!outs and identities arestill un7no"n, risen pu!licly and ta7en arms throughout the country against the overnment ofthe )epu!lic of the Philippines for the purpose of overthro"ing the present overnment, the seatof "hich is in the City of Manila, or of removing from the allegiance to that government and itsla"s, the country6s territory or part of it<

That from &'%4 to the present, the a!ovenamed accused in their capacities as leaders of theaforenamed organi;ations, in conspiracy "ith, and in support of the cause of, the organi;ationsaforementioned, engaged themselves in "ar against the forces of the government, destroyingproperty or committing serious violence, and other acts in the pursuit of their unla"ful purpose,such as . . .

=then follo"s the enumeration of specific acts committed !efore and after Fe!ruary &'(->.

At the time the :nformation "as filed the private respondent and his coaccused "ere in military custodyfollo"ing their arrest on 0' Septem!er &'(- at the Philippine eneral ?ospital, Taft Ave., Manila< he hadearlier escaped from military detention and a cash re"ard of P054,444.44 "as offered for hiscapture./

A day after the filing of the original information, or on 3 2cto!er &'(-, a petition for habeas corpus forprivate respondent and his coaccused "as filed "ith this Court5 "hich, as shall hereafter !e discussed indetail, "as dismissed in 2ur resolution of &- 2cto!er &'(- on the !asis of the agreement of the partiesunder "hich herein private respondent *"ill remain in legal custody and "ill face trial !efore the court

having custody over his person* and the "arrants for the arrest of his coaccused are deemed recalledand they shall !e immediately released !ut shall su!mit themselves to the court having $urisdiction overtheir person.

2n ovem!er %, &'(- , private respondent filed "ith the court !elo" a Motion to @uash the :nformationalleging that9 =a> the facts alleged do not constitute an offense< =!> the Court has no $urisdiction over theoffense charged< =c> the Court has no $urisdiction over the persons of the defendants< and =d> the criminalaction or lia!ility has !een etinguished,- to "hich petitioner filed an 2pposition% citing , among other

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt1


2/38

grounds, the fact that in the Joint Manifestation and Motion dated 2cto!er &/, &'(-, in .). o. %-44',private respondent categorically conceded that9

Par. 0 =+> B Petitioner )odolfo Salas "ill remain in legal custody and face trial !efore the court

having custody over his person.

:n his 2rder of March -, &'(%,( respondent Judge denied the motion to 1uash.

:nstead of as7ing for a reconsideration of said 2rder, private respondent filed on ' May &'(% a petition for !ail,'"hich herein petitioner opposed in an 2pposition filed on 0% May &'(%&4 on the ground that sincere!ellion !ecame a capital offense under the provisions of P.D. os. &''-, '/0 and &(3/, "hich amended

Article &35 of the )evised Penal Code, !y imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death on those"ho promote, maintain, or head a re!ellion the accused is no longer entitled to !ail as evidence of hisguilt is strong.

2n 5 June &'(% the President issued ecutive 2rder o. &(% repealing, among others, P.D. os. &''-,'/0 and &(3/ and restoring to full force and effect Article &35 of the )evised Penal Code as it eisted

!efore the amendatory decrees. Thus, the original penalty for re!ellion, prision mayor and a fine not toeceed P04,444.44, "as restored.

ecutive 2rder o. &(% "as pu!lished in the 2fficial a;ette in its June &5, &'(% issue =ol. (3, o. 0/>"hich "as officially released for circulation on June 0-, &'(%.

:n his 2rder of % July &'(%&& respondent Judge, ta7ing into consideration ecutive 2rder o. &(%,granted private respondent6s petition for !ail, fied the !ail !ond at P34,444.44 and imposed upon privaterespondent the additional condition that he shall report to the court once every t"o =0> months "ithin thefirst ten =&4> days of every period thereof. :n granting the petition respondent Judge stated9

. . . There is no more de!ate that "ith the effectivity of ecutive 2rder o. &(%, the offense of

re!ellion, for "hich accused )odolfo Salas is herein charged, is no" punisha!le "ith the penaltyof prision mayor and a fine not eceeding P04,444.44, "hich ma7es it no" !aila!le pursuant toSection &3, Article :::, &'(- Constitution and Section 3, )ule &&/, &'(5 )ules of CriminalProcedure. 8nli7e the old rule, !ail is no" a matter of right in noncapital offenses !efore final

$udgment. This is very evident upon a reading of Section 3, )ule &&/, aforementioned, in relationto Section 0&, same rule. :n vie", therefore, of the present circumstances in this case, saidaccusedapplicant is no" entitled to !ail as a matter of right inasmuch as the crime of re!ellionceased to !e a capital offense.

As to the contention of herein petitioner that it "ould !e dangerous to grant !ail to private respondentconsidering his stature in the CPPPA hierarchy, "hose ultimate and overriding goal is to "ipe out allvestiges of our democracy and to replace it "ith their ideology, and that his release "ould allo" his returnto his organi;ation to direct its armed struggle to topple the government !efore "hose courts he invo7es

his constitutional right to !ail, respondent Judge replied9

True, there no" appears a clash !et"een the accused6s constitutional right to !ail in a noncapitaloffense, "hich right is guaranteed in the +ill of )ights and, to 1uote again the prosecution, *theeistence of the government that !esto"s the right, the paramount interest of the state.* Suffice tostate that the +ill of )ights, one of "hich is the right to !ail, is a *declaration of the rights of theindividual, civil, political and social and economic, guaranteed !y the Constitution againstimpairment or intrusion !y any form of governmental action. mphasis is placed on the dignity ofman and the "orth of individual. There is recognition of certain inherent and inaliena!le rights ofthe individual, "hich the government is prohi!ited from violating* =@uisum!ingFernando,Philippine Constitutional Ea", &'(/ dition, p. %%>. To this Court, in case of such conflict as no"pictured !y the prosecution, the same should !e resolved in favor of the individual "ho, in theeyes of the la", is alone in the assertion of his rights under the +ill of )ights as against the State.

Any"ay, the government is that po"erful and strong, having the resources, manpo"er and the"here"ithals to fight those *"ho oppose, threathen =sic > and destroy a $ust and orderly societyand its eisting civil and political institutions.* The prosecution6s fear may or may not !e foundedthat the accused may later on $ump !ail and re$oin his comrades in the field to so" furtherdisorders and anarchy against the duly constituted authorities. +ut, then, such a fear can not !e areason to deny him !ail. For the la" is very eplicit that "hen it comes to !aila!le offenses anaccused is entitled as a matter of light to !ail.Dura est lex sed lex .

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt11


3/38

:n a motion to reconsider &0 the a!ove order filed on &- July &'(%, petitioner as7ed the court to increasethe !ail from P34,444.44 to P&44,444.44 alleging therein that per Department of Justice Circular o. &4dated 3 July &'(%, the !ail for the, provisional release of an accused should !e in an amount computed atP&4,444.44 per year of imprisonment !ased on the medium penalty imposa!le for the offense andeplaining that it is recommending P&44,444.44 !ecause the private respondent *had in the past escapedfrom the custody of the military authorities and the offense for "hich he is charged is not an ordinarycrime, li7e murder, homicide or ro!!ery, "here after the commission, the perpetrator has achieved hisend* and that *the re!ellious acts are not consummated until the "ellorgani;ed plan to overthro" thegovernment through armed struggle and replace it "ith an alien system !ased on a foreign ideology isattained.*

2n &% July &'(%, petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration&3 indirectly as7ing the court todeny !ail to the private respondent and to allo" it to present evidence in support thereof considering the*inevita!le pro!a!ility that the accused "ill not comply "ith this main condition of his !ail to appear incourt for trial,* a conclusion it claims to !e !uttressed *!y the follo"ing facts "hich are "idely 7no"n !ythe People of the Philippines and "hich this ?onora!le Court may have $udicial notice of9

&. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and "as an escapee from detention"hen arrested<

0. ?e "as not arrested at his residence as he had no 7no"n address<

3. ?e "as using the false name *Manuel Mercado Castro* at the time of his arrest and presenteda Driver6s Eicense to su!stantiate his false identity<

/. The address he gave *Panamitan, Ga"it, Cavite,* turned out to !e also a false address<

5. ?e and his companions "ere on !oard a private vehicle "ith a declared o"ner "hose identityand address "ere also found to !e false<

-. Pursuant to Ministry 2rder o. &A dated && January &'(0 , a re"ard of P054,444.44 "asoffered and paid for his arrest,

"hich *clearly indicate that the accused does not entertain the slightest intention to appear in court fortrial, if released.* Petitioner further argues that the accused, "ho is the Chairman of the Communist Partyof the Philippines and head of its military arm, the PA, together "ith his follo"ers, are no" engaged inan open "arfare and re!ellion against this government and threatens the eistence of this very Court from"hich he no" see7s provisional release,* and that "hile he is entitled to !ail as a matter of right in vie" ofecutive 2rder o. &(% "hich restored the original penalty for re!ellion under Article &35 of the )evisedPenal Code, yet, "hen the interest of the State conflicts "ith that of an individual, that of the formerprevails for *the right of the State of selfpreservation is paramount to any of the rights of an individualenshrined in the +ill of )ights of the Constitution.* Petitioner further invo7es precedents in the 8nitedStates of America holding *that there is no a!solute constitutional !arrier to detention of potentiallydangerous resident aliens pending deportation proceedings,&/ and that an arrestee may !e incarcerateduntil trial as he presents a ris7 of flight.

:n denying the supplemental motion for reconsideration the respondent Judge too7 into account the*sudden turna!out* on the part of the petitioner in that a day earlier it filed a motion for reconsideration"herein it conceded the right of the private respondent to !ail !ut merely as7ed to increase the amount of!ail< o!served that it is only a reiteration of arguments in its opposition to the petition for !ail of 05 May&'(%< asserted that the American precedents are not applica!le since the cases involved deportation ofaliens and, moreover, the 8.S. Federal Constitution does not contain a proviso on the right of an accusedto !ail in !aila!le offenses, !ut only an in$unction against ecessive !ail< and 1uoted the concurring

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt17


4/38

opinion of the late Justice Pedro Tuason in the cases of ava, et al. vs. atmaitan, E/(53, ?ernande;vs. Montesa, E/'-/ and Angeles vs. A!aya, E5&4(, 2cto!er &&, &'5&, '4 Phil, &%0.

8na!le to agree "ith said 2rder, petitioner commenced this petition su!mitting therein the follo"ingissues9

T? ?22)A+E )SP2DT J8D P)2C2)2 J. D2AT2 ACTD H:T? )A A+8S 2F D:SC)T:2 AD : ICSS 2F ?:S J8):SD:CT:2, AD : T2TAED:S)A)D 2F T? P)A:E: )AE:T:S, H? ? D:D PT:T:2)6SS8PPEMTAE M2T:2 F2) )C2S:D)AT:2 H:T? P)A) T2 + : T?2PP2)T8:T T2 ADD8C :DC : S8PP2)T 2F :TS 2PP2S:T:2 T2 T? )AT2F +A:E T2 T? )SP2DT )2D2EF2 SAEAS.

T? ?22)A+E )SP2DT J8D P)2C2)2 J. D2AT2 ACTD H:T? )A A+8S 2F D:SC)T:2 AD : ICSS 2F ?:S J8):SD:CT:2 H? ? )ATD +A:ET2 T? )SP2DT )2D2EF2 SAEAS.

in support of "hich petitioner argues that private respondent is estopped from invo7ing his right to !ail,having epressly "aived it in .). o. %-44' "hen he agreed to *remain in legal custody and face trial

!efore the court having custody of his person* in consideration of the recall of the "arrant of arrest for hiscopetitioners Josefina Cru; and Jose Concepcion< and the right to !ail, even in noncapital offenses, isnot a!solute "hen there is prima facie evidence that the accused is a serious threat to the very eistenceof the State, in "hich case the prosecution must !e allo"ed to present evidence for the denial of !ail.Conse1uently, respondent Judge acted "ith grave a!use of discretion "hen he did not allo" petitioner topresent all the evidence it may desire to support its prayer for the denial of !ail and "hen he declared thatthe State has forfeited its right to do so since during all the time that the petition for !ail "as pending, itnever manifested, much less hinted, its intention to adduce such evidence. And that even if release on!ail may !e allo"ed, respondent $udge, in fiing the amount of !ail at P54,444.44 =originally P34,444.44only>, failed to ta7e into account the lengthy record of private respondents6 criminal !ac7ground, thegravity of the pending charge, and the li7elihood of flight.&(

:n 2ur resolution of && August &'(%&' He re1uired the respondents to comment on the petition and issued

a Temporary )estraining 2rder ordering respondent Judge to cease and desist from implementing hisorder of 34 July &'(% granting !ail to private respondent in the amount of P54,444.44.

:n his Comment filed on 0% August &'(%,04 private respondent as7s for the outright dismissal of thepetition and immediate lifting of the temporary restraining order on the follo"ing grounds9

:

)SP2DT SAEAS ) HA:D ?:S ):?T T2 +A:E< :T?) :S ? ST2PPDF)2M ASS)T: SA:D ):?T. 2 T? C2T)A) :T :S PT:T:2) H?2 :SST2PPD F)2M )A:S: T? SA:D :SS8 F2) T? F:)ST T:M 2 APPAE.

::

)SP2DT SAEAS J2S 2T 2E T? C2ST:T8T:2AE ):?T T2 +P)S8MD :2CT +8T AES2 T? ):?T T2 +A:E.

:::

)SP2DT SAEAS :S 2T C?A)D H:T? A CAP:TAE 2FFS =RECLUSIONERE!U">, ?C ? ?AS T? ):?T T2 +A:E AS MADATD + T? C2ST:T8T:2.

:

T? 2)D) 2F J8E 34, &'(% D: PT:T:2) 2PP2)T8:T T2 P)ST:DC :S C2))CT. PT:T:2)6S AEED ):?T T2 P)ST :DC :S 2I:STT AD#2) ?AD + HA:D.

T? :SS8AC 2F A TMP2)A) )ST)A:: 2)D) : T?:S CAS :2EATS 2T2E )SP2DT SAEAS6 ):?T T2 +A:E +8T AES2 ?:S 2T?) C2ST:T8T:2AE):?T T2 D8 P)2CSS.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt20


5/38

He re1uired the petitioner to reply to the comment of private respondent.0& The reply "as filed on &(Septem!er &'(%.00

:n 2ur resolution of &5 2cto!er &'(%03 He gave due course to the petition and re1uired the parties to filesimultaneously their memoranda "ithin t"enty days from notice.

:n their respective manifestations and motions dated 5 ovem!er 0/

and 03 ovem!er &'(%05

petitionerand private respondents as7ed to !e ecused from filing their Memoranda and that the petition and reply!e considered as the Memorandum for petitioner and the Comment as the Memorandum for privaterespondent, "hich He granted in 2ur resolution of &' ovem!er &'(%0- and & Decem!er&'(%,0% respectively.

:n 2ur resolution of &/ Septem!er &'(' He re1uired the Solicitor eneral to epress his stand on theissues raised in this petitions,0( "hich he complied "ith !y filing his Manifestation on 34 May&''40' "herein he manifests that he supports the petition and su!mits that the 2rder of respondent Judgeof July %, July &% and July 34, &'(% should !e annulled and set aside asserting that private respondenthad "aived the light to !ail in vie" of the agreement in .). o. %-44'< that granting !ail to him isaccepting "ideeyed his underta7ing "hich he is sure to !rea7< in determining !ail, the primaryconsideration is to insure the attendance of the accused at the trial of the case against him "hich "ould

!e frustrated !y the *almost certainty that respondent Salas "ill lump !ail of "hatever amount*< andapplication of the guidelines provided for in Section &4 of )ule &&/, &'(5 )ules on Criminal Procedure onthe amount of !ail dictates denial of !ail to private respondent. The Solicitor eneral li7e"ise maintainsthat the right of the petitioner to hearing on the application of private respondent for !ail cannot !e denied!y respondent Judge.

And no" on the issues presented in this case.

:.

8n1uestiona!ly, at the time the original and the amended :nformations for re!ellion and the application for !ail "ere filed !efore the court !elo" the penalty imposa!le for the offense for "hich the privaterespondent "as charged "as reclusion perpetua to death. During the pendency of the application for !ail

ecutive 2rder o. &(% "as issued !y the President, !y virtue of "hich the penalty for re!ellion asoriginally provided for in Article &35 of the )evised Penal Code "as restored. The restored la" "as thegoverning la" at the time the respondent court resolved the petition for !ail.

He agree "ith the respondent court that !ail cannot !e denied to the private respondent for he is charged"ith the crime of re!ellion as defined in Article &3/ of the )evised Penal Code to "hich is attached thepenalty of prision mayor and a fine not eceeding P04,444.44.34 :t is, therefore, a bailable offense underSection &3 of Article ::: of the &'(% Constitution "hich provides thus9

Sec. &3. All persons, ecept those charged "ith offenses punisha!le !y reclusion perpetua "henevidence of guilt is strong, shall, !efore conviction, !e !aila!le !y sufficient sureties, or !ereleased on recogni;ance as may !e prescri!ed !y la". The right to !ail shall not !e impairedeven "hen the privilege of the "rit of habeas corpus is suspended. cessive !ail shall not !ere1uired.

Section 3, )ule &&/ of the )ules of Court, as amended, also provides9

#ail$ a matter of right 9 exception% & All persons in custody shall, !efore final conviction, !eentitled to !ail as a matter of right, ecept those charged "ith a capital offense or an offense"hich, under the la" at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for !ail, ispunisha!le !y reclusion perpetua$ "hen evidence of guilt is strong.

Therefore, !efore conviction !ail is either a matter of right or of discretion. :t is a matter of right "hen theoffense charged is punisha!le !y any penalty lo"er than reclusion perpetua.3& To that etent the right isa!solute.30

And so, in a similar case for re!ellion, eople 's% (ernande)$ et al%$ '' Phil. 5&5, despite the fact that theaccused "as already convicted, although erroneously, !y the trial court for the comple crime of re!ellion"ith multiple murders, arsons and ro!!eries, and sentenced to life imprisonment, He granted !ail in theamount of P34,444.44 during the pendency of his appeal from such conviction. To the vigorous stand ofthe People that He must deny !ail to the accused !ecause the security of the State so re1uires, and!ecause the $udgment of conviction appealed from indicates that the evidence of guilt of ?ernande; isstrong, He held9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt32


6/38

. . . Furthermore, individual freedom is too !asic, too transcendental and vital in a repu!licanstate, li7e ours, to !e derived upon mere general principles and a!stract consideration of pu!licsafety. :ndeed, the preservation of li!erty is such a ma$or preoccupation of our political systemthat, not satisfied "ith guaranteeing its en$oyment in the very first paragraph of section =&> of the+ill of )ights, the framers of our Constitution devoted paragraphs =3>, =/>, =5>, =->, =%>, =(>, =&&>,=&0>, =&3>, =&/>, =&5>, =&->, =&%>, =&(>, and =0&> of said section =&> to the protection of severalaspects of freedom.

The &'(% Constitution strengthens further the right to !ail !y eplicitly providing that it shall not !eimpaired even "hen the privilege of the "rit of habeas corpus is suspended. This overturns the Court6sruling in *arcia+adilla 's% Enrile$ et al ., supra., to "it9

The suspension of the privilege of the "rit of habeas corpus must, indeed, carry "ith it thesuspension of the right to !ail, if the government6s campaign to suppress the re!ellion is to !eenhanced and rendered effective. :f the right to !ail may !e demanded during the continuance ofthe re!ellion, and those arrested, captured and detained in the course thereof "ill !e released,they "ould, "ithout the least dou!t, re$oin their comrades in the field there!y $eopardi;ing thesuccess of government efforts to !ring to an end the invasion, re!ellion or insurrection.

8pon the other hand, if the offense charged is punisha!le !y reclusion perpetua !ail !ecomes a matter ofdiscretion. :t shall !e denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The court6s discretion is limited todetermining "hether or not evidence of guilt is strong.33 +ut once it is determined that the evidence of guiltis not strong, !ail also !ecomes a matter of right. :n !eehan,ee 's% Director of risons$ supra%$ He held9

The provision on !ail in our Constitution is patterned after similar provisions contained in theConstitution of the 8nited States and that of many states of the 8nion. And it is said that9

The Constitution of the 8nited States and the constitution of the many states provide thatall persons shall !e !aila!le !y sufficient sureties, ecept for capital offenses, "here theproof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great, and, under such provisions, !ail is amatter of right "hich no court or $udge can properly refuse, in all cases not em!raced inthe eceptions. 8nder such provisions bail is a matter of right e'en in cases of capital

offenses$ unless the proof of guilt is e'ident or the presumption thereof is great- 3/

Accordingly, the prosecution does not have the right to present evidence for the denial of !ail inthe instances "here !ail is a matter of right. ?o"ever, in the cases "here the grant of !ail isdiscretionary, due process re1uires that the prosecution must !e given an opportunity to present,"ithin a reasona!le time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce !efore the court shouldresolve the motion for !ail.35

He agree, ho"ever, "ith petitioner that it "as error for the respondent court to fi the !ond atP34,444.44, then later at P54,444.44 "ithout hearing the prosecution. The guidelines for thefiing of the amount of !ail provided for in Section &4 of )ule &&/ of the )ules of Court are notmatters left entirely to the discretion of the court. As He stated in eople 's% Dacudao$ et al%$ &%4SC)A, /(', /'59

Certain guidelines in the fiing of a !ail!ond call for the presentation of evidence andreasona!le opportunity for the prosecution to refute it. Among them are the nature andcircumstances of the crime, character and reputation of the accused, the "eight of theevidence against him, the pro!a!ility of the accused appearing at the trial, "hether or notthe accused is a fugitive from $ustice, and "hether or not the accused is under !ond inother case. . . .

:n the instant case petitioner has sufficiently made out allegations "hich necessitate a grant of anopportunity to !e heard for the purpose of determining the amount of !ail, !ut not for the denialthereof !ecause aforesaid Section &4 of )ule &&/ does not authori;e any court to deny !ail.

::.

:t must, ho"ever, !e stressed that under the present state of the la", re!ellion is no longerpunisha!le !y prision mayor and fine not eceeding P04,444.44. )epu!lic Act o. -'-( approvedon 0/ 2cto!er &''4 and "hich too7 effect after pu!lication in at least t"o ne"spapers of generalcirculation, amended, among others, Article &35 of the )evised Penal Code !y increasing thepenalty for re!ellion such that, as amended, it no" reads9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt35


7/38

Article &35. enalty for rebellion$ insurrection or coup d.etat . Any person "hopromotes, maintains, or heads a re!ellion or insurrection shall suffer the penaltyof reclusion perpetua.

Any person merely participating or eecuting the commands of others in a re!ellion orinsurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

This amendatory la" cannot apply to the private respondent for acts allegedly committed prior toits effectivity. :t is not favora!le to him. *Penal la"s shall have a retroactive effect insofar as theyfavor the person guilty of a felony, "ho is not a ha!itual criminal, as this term is defined in )ule 5of Article -0 of this Code, although at the time of the pu!lication of such la"s a final sentence has!een pronounced and the convict is serving the same.3-

:::.

He agree "ith Petitioner that private respondent has, ho"ever, "aived his right to !ail in .). o.%-44'.

2n 3 2cto!er &'(-, or the day follo"ing the f iling of the original information in Criminal Case o.(-/('0- "ith the trial court, a petition for habeas corpus for herein private respondent, and hiscoaccused Josefina Cru; and Jose Concepcion, "as filed "ith this Court !y Eucia Cru;, AidaConcepcion Pani;a and +eatri; Salas against Juan Ponce nrile, en. Fidel )amos, +rig. en.)enato de illa, +rig. en. )amon MontaKo, and Col. Salda$eno praying, among others, that thepetition !e given due course and a "rit of habeas corpus !e issued re1uiring respondents toproduce the !odies of herein private respondent and his coaccused !efore the Court and eplain!y "hat authority they arrested and detained them. The follo"ing proceedings too7 placethereafter in said case9

&. :n a resolution of % 2cto!er &'(- He issued a "rit of habeas corpus, re1uired respondents toma7e a return of the "rit on or !efore the close of office hours on &3 2cto!er and set the petitionfor hearing on &/ 2cto!er &'(- at &4944 o6cloc7 in the morning.

0. 2n &3 2cto!er &'(- respondents, through the 2ffice of the Solicitor eneral, filed a )eturn ToThe Hrit of (abeas Corpus alleging therein that private respondent and Josefina Cru; alias *Mrs.Mercado*, and Jose Milo Concepcion alias *ugene Lamora* "ere apprehended !y the militaryon Septem!er 0', &'(- in the evening at the Philippine eneral ?ospital Compound at Taft Ave.,Mangga !eing leaders or mem!ers of the Communist Party of the Philippines, e" People6s

Army and ational Democratic Front, organi;ations dedicated to the overthro" of theovernment through violent means, and having actually committed acts of re!ellion under Article&3/ of the )evised Penal Code, as amended. After their arrest they "ere forth"ith charged "ithre!ellion !efore +ranch I:: of the )egional Trial Court, ational Capital )egion in Criminal Caseo. (-/('0- and on 3 2cto!er "arrants for their arrest "ere issued and respondents continue todetain them !ecause of the "arrants of arrest and the pendency of the criminal cases againstthem. )espondents further allege that, contrary to the allegation in the petition, herein privaterespondent "as not a mem!er of the DF panel involved in peace negotiations "ith theovernment< neither is he and his companions Cru; and Concepcion covered !y any, safeconduct pass issued !y competent authorities.

3. At the hearing on &/ 2cto!er &'(- the parties informed the Court of certain agreementsreached !et"een them. He issued a resolution reading as follo"s9

Hhen this case "as called for hearing this morning, Attorneys )omeo Capulong, Arno .Sanidad, fren ?. Mercado, dgardo Pamintuan, Casiano Sa!ile, )amon Cura, andHilliam Chua appeared for the petitioners "ith Atty. Capulong arguing for the petitioners.Solicitor eneral Sedfrey 2rdone;, Assistant Solicitor eneral )omeo C. de la Cru; andTrial Attorney Josue . illanueva appeared for the respondents, "ith Solicitor eneral2rdoKe; arguing for the respondents.

Petitioners6 counsel, Atty. )omeo Capulong, manifested in open Court that in conformity"ith the agreement reached "ith the government, the petition for habeas corpus "ill !e"ithdra"n "ith detainee )odolfo Salas to remain under custody, "hereas his codetainees Josefina Cru; and Jose Milo Concepcion "ill !e released immediately.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt36


8/38

Solicitor eneral Sedfrey 2rdoKe;, also in open Court, confirmed the foregoingstatement made !y petitioners6 counsel regarding the "ithdra"al of the petitionfor habeas corpus, declaring that no o!$ection "ill !e interposed to the immediate releaseof detainees Josefina Cru; and Jose Milo Concepcion, and that no !ond "ill !e re1uiredof them, !ut they "ill continue to face trial "ith their coaccused, )odolfo Salas< further,that they "ill not !e rearrested on the !asis of the "arrants issued !y the trial courtprovided that they manifest in open Court their "illingness to su!$ect themselves to the

$urisdiction of the Court and to appear in court "hen their presence is re1uired.

:n addition, he stated that he is "illing to confer "ith petitioners6 counsel today relative tothe compromise agreement that they have previously underta7en to su!mit.

8pon manifestation of petitioners6 counsel, Atty. )omeo Capulong, that on his oath asmem!er of the +ar, the detainees Josefina Cru; and Jose Milo Concepcion have agreedto su!$ect themselves to the $urisdiction of the trial court, the Court ordered theirimmediate release.

Thereafter, the Court approved the foregoing manifestations and statements and re1uired!oth parties to S8+M:T to the Court their compromise agreement !y /944 o6cloc7 this

afternoon. Teehan7ee, C%/ ., is on official leave.

/. At 39/' o6cloc7 in the afternoon of &/ 2cto!er &'(- the parties su!mitted a Joint Manifestationand Motion duly signed !y Atty. )omeo Capulong, counsel for petitioners, and Solicitor eneralSedfrey 2rdoKe;, Assistant Solicitor eneral )omeo C. de la Cru; and Trial Attorney Josue S.illanueva, counsel for respondents, "hich reads as follo"s9

C2M 2H petitioners and the respondents, assisted !y their respective counsel, andto this ?onora!le Tri!unal respectfully manifest9

&. That in the discussion !et"een )omeo Capulong, petitioners6 counsel, and Solicitoreneral Sedfrey A. 2rdoKe; on 2cto!er &3, &'(- eploratory tal7s "ere conducted tofind out ho" the ma$esty of the la" may !e preserved and human considerations may !e

called into play.

0. That in the conference !oth counsel agreed to the follo"ing terms of agreement9

a. The petition for habeas corpus "ill !e "ithdra"n !y petitioners and JosefinaCru; and Jose Milo Concepcion "ill !e immediately released !ut shall appear atthe trial of the criminal case for re!ellion =People v. )odolfo Salas, et al., CriminalCase o. /((- should !e (-/('0-N, )egional Trial Court, ational CapitalJudicial )egion> filed against them under their personal recogni;ance.

!. Petitioner )odolfo Salas "ill remain in legal custody and face trial !efore thecourt having custody over his person.

c. The "arrant of arrest for the persons of Josefina Cru; and Jose MiloConcepcion is here!y deemed recalled in vie" of formal manifestation !efore theSupreme Court that they "ill su!mit themselves to the court having $urisdictionover their person.

3. That on 2cto!er &/, the Solicitor eneral "as a!le to o!tain the conformity of theovernment to the foregoing terms "hich "ere li7e"ise accepted !y petitioner =sic > andtheir counsel of record.

/. That the t"o counsel su!mitted their oral manifestation during the hearing on 2cto!er&/ and the present manifestation in compliance "ith the resolution announced in courtthis morning.

H?)F2), it is prayed that the petition for habeas corpus !e dismissed.

5. 2n &- 2cto!er &'(- He issued the follo"ing resolution9

.). o. %-44' :n the Matter of the Petition for (abeas Corpus of )odolfo Salas,Josefina Cru; and Jose Milo Concepcion, et al. v. ?on. Juan Ponce nrile, en. Fidel .)amos, +rig. en. )enato de illa, +rig. en. )amon MontaKo and Col. irgilio


9/38

Salda$enoN considering the Joint Manifestation and Motion dated 2cto!er &/, &'(- filed!y Attorneys )omeo Capulong, Arno . Sanidad, fren ?. Mercado and )icardoFernande;, Jr. as counsel for petitioners and Solicitor eneral Sedfrey A. 2rdone; and

Assistant Solicitor eneral )omeo C. de la Cru; and Trial Attorney Josue S. illanuevaas counsel for respondents "hich states that they have entered into an agreement"here!y9 aN the petition for habeas corpus "ill !e "ithdra"n !y petitioners, and JosefinaCru; and Jose Milo Concepcion "ill !e immediately released !ut shall appear at the trialof the criminal case for re!ellion People vs. )odolfo Salas, et al., Criminal Case o./((-, )egional Trial Court, ational Capital Judicial )egion, +ranch I::, ManilaN, filedagainst them, on their personal recogni;ance< !N petitioner )odolfo Salas "ill remain inlegal custody and face trial !efore the court having custody over his person< and cN the"arrant of arrest for the person of Josefina Cru; and Jose Milo Concepcion is here!ydeemed recalled in vie" of the formal manifestation !efore this Court that they "ill su!mitthemselves to the court having $urisdiction over their person and in vie" of the saidagreement, the petition for habeas corpus !e dismissed, the Court )esolved to D:SM:SSthe petition for habeas corpus !ut su!$ect to the condition that petitioners6 lead counsel,

Atty. Capulong, upon his oath as mem!er of the +ar, shall a!ide !y his commitment toensure the appearance of Josefina Cru; and Jose Milo Concepcion at the trial of thecriminal case for re!ellion filed against them. Teehan7ee,C%/ ., is on official leave.

:t is the stand of the petitioner that private respondent, *in agreeing to remain in legal custody even duringthe pendency of the trial of his criminal case, heN has epressly "aived his right to !ail.*3% 8pon the otherhand, private respondent asserts that this claim is totally devoid of factual and legal !asis, for in theirpetition for habeas corpus they precisely 1uestioned the legality of the arrest and the continued detentionof )odolfo Salas, Josefina Cru; and Jose Milo Concepcion, "hich "as not resolved !y this Court or !ythe compromise agreement of the parties !ut left open for further determination in another proceeding.Moreover, the matter of the right to !ail "as neither raised !y either party nor resolved !y this Court, andthe legal steps promptly ta7en !y private respondent after the agreement "as reached, li7e the filing ofthe motion to 1uash on % ovem!er &'(- and the petition for !ail on &/ May &'(%, "ere clear andpositive assertions of his statutory and constitutional rights to !e granted not only provisional !ut final andpermanent li!erty. Finally, private respondent maintains that the term *legal custody* as used in the JointManifestation and Motion simply means that private respondent agreed to continue to !e in the custody of the la" or in custodia legis and nothing else< it is not to !e interpreted as "aiver.

:nterestingly, private respondent admits that9

*Custody* has !een held to mean nothing less than actual imprisonment. :t is also defined as thedetainer of a person !y virtue of a la"ful authority, or the *care and possession of a thing orperson.* =+ouviers Ea" Dictionary, Third d, ol. :, pp. %/&%/0 citing Smith v. Com. 5' Pa. 304and )olland v. Com. (0 Pa. 34->

?e further admits that, in the light of Section & of )ule &&/ of the )ules of Court and settled $urisprudence,the *constitutional right to !ail is su!$ect to the limitation that the person applying for admission to !ailshould !e in the custody of the la" or other"ise deprived of his li!erty.*3(

Hhen the parties in .). o. %-44' stipulated that9

!. Petitioner )odolfo Salas 0ill remain in legal custody and face trial !efore the court ha'ingcustody o'er his person.

they simply meant that )odolfo Salas, herein respondent, "ill remain in actual physical custody of thecourt, or in actual confinement or detention, as distinguished from the stipulation concerning his copetitioners, "ho "ere to !e released in vie" of the recall of the "arrants of arrest against them< theyagreed, ho"ever, *to su!mit themselves to the court ha'ing 1urisdiction o'er their persons.* ote should!e made of the deli!erate care of the parties in ma7ing a fine distinction !et"een legal custody and courtha'ing custody o'er the person in respect to )odolfo Salas and court ha'ing 1urisdiction o'er the

persons of his coaccused. Such a fine distinction "as precisely intended to emphasi;e the agreementthat Rodolfo Salas "ill not !e released, !ut should remain in custody. ?ad the parties intended other"ise,

or had this !een unclear to private respondent and his counsel, they should have insisted on the use of aclearer language. :t must !e remem!ered that at the time the parties orally manifested !efore this Courton &/ 2cto!er &'(- the terms and conditions of their agreement and prepared and signed the JointManifestation and Motion, a "arrant of arrest had already !een issued !y the trial court against privaterespondent and his coaccused. The stipulation that only the "arrants of arrest for Josefina Cru; andJose Milo Concepcion shall !e recalled and that only they shall !e released, further confirmed theagreement that herein petitioner shall remain in custody of the la", or detention or confinement.

:n defining !ail as9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_79269_1991.html#rnt38


10/38

. . . the security given for the release of a person in custody of the la0 , . . .

Section & of )ule &&/ of the )evised )ules of Court admits no other meaning or interpretation for the term*in custody of the la"* than that as a!ove indicated. The purpose of !ail is to relieve an accused fromimprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial.3' :t presupposes that theperson applying for it should !e in the custody of the la" or other"ise deprived of li!erty./4

Conse1uently, having agreed in .). o. %-44' to remain in legal custody, private respondent hadune1uivoca!ly "aived his right to !ail.

+ut, is such "aiver validO

Article - of the Civil Code epressly provides9

Art. -. )ights may !e "aived, unless the "aiver is contrary to la", pu!lic order, pu!lic policy,morals, or good customs, or pre$udicial to a third person "ith a right recogni;ed !y la".

Haiver is defined as *a voluntary and intentional relin1uishment or a!andonment of a 7no"n eisting legalright, advantage, !enefit, claim or privilege, "hich ecept for such "aiver the party "ould have en$oyed<the voluntary a!andonment or surrender, !y a capa!le person, of a right 7no"n !y him to eist, "ith theintent that such right shall !e surrendered and such person forever deprived of its !enefit< or suchconduct as "arrants an inference of the relin1uishment of such right< or the intentional doing of an actinconsistent "ith claiming it.*/&

As to "hat rights and privileges may !e "aived, the authority is settled9

. . . the doctrine of "aiver etends to rights and privileges of any character, and, since the "ord*"aiver* covers every conceiva!le right, it is the general rule that a person may "aive any matter"hich affects his property, and any aliena!le right or privilege of "hich he is the o"ner or "hich!elongs to him or to "hich he is legally entitled, "hether secured !y contract, conferred "ithstatute, or guaranteed by constitution$provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual,

are intended for his sole !enefit, do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the"aiver of the right or privilege is not for!idden !y la", and does not contravene pu!lic policy< andthe principle is recogni;ed that everyone has a right to "aive, and agree to "aive, the advantageof a la" or rule made solely for the !enefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity,if it can !e dispensed "ith and relin1uished "ithout infringing on any pu!lic right, and "ithoutdetriment to the community at large. . . .

Although the general rule is that any right or privilege conferred !y statute or guaranteed byconstitutionmay !e "aived, a "aiver in derogation of a statutory right is not favored, and a "aiver"ill !e inoperative and void if it infringes on the rights of others, or "ould !e against pu!lic policyor morals and the pu!lic interest may !e "aived.

Hhile it has !een stated generally that all personal rights conferred !y statute and guaranteed by

constitution may !e "aived, it has also !een said that constitutional provisions intended to protectproperty may !e "aived, and even some of the constitutional rights created to secure personalli!erty are su!$ects of "aiver ./0

:n Common0ealth 's% etrillo$/3 it "as held9

)ights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall naturally into t"o classes9 =a> those in "hich thestate, as "ell as the accused, is interested< and =!> those "hich are personal to the accused,"hich are in the nature of personal privileges. Those of the first class cannot !e "aived< those ofthe second may !e.

:t is *competent for a person to "aive a right guaranteed !y the Constitution, and to consent to action"hich "ould !e invalid if ta7en against his "ill.*//

This Court has recogni;ed "aivers of constitutional rights such as, for eample, the right againstunreasona!le searches and sei;ures


11/38

. . . These rights cannot !e "aived ecept in "riting and in the presence of counsel.

This provision merely particulari;es the form and manner of the "aiver< it, nevertheless, clearly suggeststhat the other rights may !e "aived in some other form or manner provided such "aiver "ill not offend

Article - of the Civil Code.

He here!y rule that the right to !ail is another of the constitutional rights "hich can !e "aived. :t is a right"hich is personal to the accused and "hose "aiver "ould not !e contrary to la", pu!lic order, pu!licpolicy, morals, or good customs, or pre$udicial to a third person "ith a right recogni;ed !y la".

The respondent Judge then clearly acted "ith grave a!use of discretion in granting !ail to the privaterespondent.

H?)F2), the 2rders of respondent Judge of July %, &'(% and July 34, &'(% in Criminal Case o.(-/('0- entitled People of the Philippines vs. )odolfo C. Salas alias Commander +ilog#?enry, JosefinaCru; alias Mrs. Mercado, and Jose Milo Concepcion alias ugene Lamora, for )e!ellion, are here!y8EE:F:D and ST AS:D.

S2 2)D)D.


12/38

A.-. No. -TJ0960172 J#nu#(' 1, 19963OCA I.P.I. No. 95040-TJ

DANIEL -A-OLO, SR., complainant,vs.

JDGE ROGELIO R. NARIS-A, -uni"i%#$ Ci("ui& T(i#$ Cou(&, +(. 1, +#n#$#n0-#*#'#', D##o)e$ Su(,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

:n his letter to the Secretary of Justice dated - June &''/ and endorsed !y the Department of Justice to

the 2ffice of the Court Administrator on ( July &''/ for appropriate action complainant Daniel Mamolo Sr.

see7s an independent investigation concerning the immediate grant of !ail allegedly "ithout hearing !y

respondent Judge )ogelio ). arisma, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, +r. &, +ansalanMagsaysay, Davao,

to accused Antonio +alagot in Crim. Case o. &%-5='/>+ "ho "as charged "ith the capital offense of

murder.

2n &- May &''/ a criminal complaint for murder "as filed against Antonio +alagot and Ariel Acha !eforethe MCTC of +ansalanMagsaysay, Davao del Sur, for the murder of Daniel Mamolo, Jr., son of

complainant, doc7eted as Crim. Case o. &%-5='/>+. After Judge )ogelio ). arisma conducted the

re1uisite preliminary eamination he issued the corresponding "arrants of arrest against the accused.

)espondent Judge recommended no !ail since murder is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt "as

strong. Acha "as later arrested "hile +alagot surrendered to the PC Provincial Command in Cota!ato.

Su!se1uently, +alagot through counsel filed a etition 4or "dmission to #ail and set the same for hearing

on 05 May &''/. At the scheduled hearing defense counsel informed the court that +alagot "as ill and

as7ed the court to dispense "ith the su!mission of his petition and, instead, to allo" +alagot to !e treated

at the hospital.

Complainant claims that despite the fact that respondent Judge recommended no !ail for !oth accused

he nevertheless allo"ed +alagot to put a !ail of P&54,444.44 "ithout giving the prosecution the

opportunity to present its evidence to prove that the evidence of guilt against the accused "as strong.

Complainant also avers that on several occasions he sa" respondent Judge and counsel for accused

+alagot together and engaged in a series of private tal7s at a near!y restaurant. Complainant also alleges

that respondent6s highly irregular actuation led him =complainant> to entertain thoughts on *?o" much

"as the reason "hy the etition for the "dmission to #ail "as secretly and favora!ly granted over the

o!$ection of the prosecution much less giving =the prosecution> a chance to present the evidence of guilt.*

2n the other hand, respondent Judge asserts that he approved +alagot6s etition for "dmission to

#ail after conducting a hearing on 05 May &''/ and upon the 5anifestation of 0nd Asst. ProvincialProsecutor @uiKones that he "as su!mitting the resolution of the petition to the sound discretion of the

court.

)espondent denies having received anything from accused +alagot, pointing out that the

prosecution6s !ra'erse !o the etition for "dmission to #ail "as not filed in court and therefore "as not

appreciated in resolving the petition< and, that the prosecution did not appeal the order granting !ail.

)espondent Judge li7e"ise denies having met and tal7ed to counsel for +alagot on several occasions.

?e admits ho"ever that he sa" counsel only once at an eatery "hile ta7ing his lunch and that counsel

merely in1uired then "ithin hearing distance of several persons "hether the petition for !ail could !e filed

in the municipal court, so that respondent "as constrained to tal7 to counsel as the latter "as already infront of him.

:n his 5emorandum of 0& July &''5, approved !y Court Administrator rnani Cru; PaKo, Deputy Court

Administrator )eynaldo E. Suare; found that respondent Judge disregarded procedural due process in

granting !ail to the accused. ?e opined that the prosecution6s "aiver to present evidence ought to have

prompted respondent Judge *to as7 the prosecution to present its "itnesses at another date set for the

purpose =of as7ing> clarificatory 1uestions from "hich he may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt of


13/38

the accused.* DCA Suare; then su!mitted the instant case to the Court upon finding no further necessity

for an etended investigation. ?e also informed the Court that respondent Judge "as on 3 July &''5

appointed )TC Judge of +r. 03, Gidapa"an, orth Cota!ato.

He agree "ith 2CA6s evaluation. The procedure of conducting a hearing on the application for admission

to !ail should provide the !asis for $udges to determine "hether the prosecution6s evidence is "ea7 or

strong. :n the case at !ench, "hile respondent conducted a hearing on +alagot6s petition for !ail such

proceeding did not elicit evidence from the prosecution to guide respondent in the proper determination of

the petition. A revie" of the TS of the 05 May &''/ hearing& reveals that only the amount of !ail "as

discussed after an impasse on the plea regarding the confinement of the accused B

Atty. Palmones =counsel for accused>9

Another proposal "e are su!mitting for consideration !y this ?on. Court and the prosecution9

accused is "illing to put up !ond for his temporary li!erty in the amount of P&44,444.44 $ust to

assure the court and the prosecution that the accused "ill face charges against him.

Prosecutor @uiKones9

: "ill first consult my head of office regarding the proposal of the accused.

Court9

ou raise that to P044,444.44.

Atty. Palmones9

As a matter of fact "e are ready "ith our property !ond. Hhat "e are prepared to post is

P&54,444.44.

Court9

That might soften the heart of Fiscal @uiKones.

Prosecutor @uiKones9

May : !e allo"ed to consult my chief this afternoon. : thin7 "e can consider that proposal.

o"here in the transcript of the hearing do "e find 1uestions propounded !y respondent Judge verifying

the strength of the prosecution6s evidence. :n ayao ' . Lesaca0 "e stressed that in a !ail hearing the

$udge is under legal o!ligation to receive evidence "ith the vie" of determining "hether evidence of guilt

is so strong as to "arrant denial of !ail.

:n $ustifying his grant of !ail respondent claims that he afforded the prosecution the chance to present

evidence !ut the latter su!mitted the resolution of the petition to the sound discretion of the court "ithout

presenting additional evidence.

The deferential attitude of the prosecution cannot ecuse respondent6s disregard of his peremptory duty. :t

is "orthy to note that in the resumption of the hearing in the afternoon of 05 May &''/ the prosecution

prefaced its su!mission "ith a statement of its *serious vehement o!$ection to the petition for !ail.* Such

manifestation ought to have alerted respondent of the net appropriate steps in resolving the petition.

:n #orinaga ' . !amin3 "e delineated a clear guideline on the eercise of $udicial discretion in hearingpetitions for !ail B

. . . =">hile the determination of "hether or not evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of $udicial

discretion, this discretion !y the nature of things may rightly !e eercised only after the evidence

is su!mitted to the court at such hearing. Hhether the motion for !ail of an accused "ho is in

custody in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial the prosecution must !e given

an opportunity to present, "ithin a reasona!le time, all the evidence that it may desire to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt3


14/38

introduce !efore the court may resolve the motion for !ail. :f the prosecution should !e denied of

such an opportunity, there "ould !e a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the

court granting !ail should !e considered void on that ground . . . =>ven "here the prosecutor

refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fi !ail, the court may as7

the prosecution such 1uestions as "ould ascertain the strength of the state6s evidence or $udge

the ade1uacy of the amount of !ail . . .

The failure of respondent Judge to adhere to a !asic, fundamental procedure cannot !e lightly

overloo7ed. As correctly perceived !y 2CA, this omission !y respondent constitutes gross ignorance of

the la" since it resulted in depriving the prosecution the timetested and enduring procedural due

process.

:t is an oftrepeated dictum that a $udge should ehi!it more than $ust a cursory ac1uaintance "ith the

statutes and procedural rules. For the role of $udges in the administration of $ustice re1uires a continuous

study of the la" and $urisprudence./ :ndu!ita!ly, the industry of a $udge in 7eeping a!reast "ith the la"

and court rulings "ill enhance the faith of our people in the administration of $ustice since litigants "ill !e

confidently and invaria!ly assured that the occupants of the !ench cannot $ustly !e accused of a

deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.

H?)F2), for his failure to afford procedural due process to the prosecution in the grant of !ail to the

accused in Crim. Case o. &%-5='/>+ "hile then the MCTC Judge of +ansalanMagsaysay, Davao del

Sur, Judge )ogelio ). arisma, no" )TC Judge, +r. 03, Gidapa"an, orth Cota!ato, is F:D

P04,444.44 "hich he is re1uired to pay "ithin thirty =34> days from receipt hereof, "ith a ST)

HA): that a repetition of the same act or the commission of a similar offense "ill !e dealt "ith more

severely.

S2 2)D)D.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/am_mtj_96_1072_1996.html#fnt4


15/38

G.R. No. 148571 Se%&e/e( 24, 22

GO:ERN-ENT OF THE NITED STATES OF A-ERICA,Re%(een&e) ' &he Phi$i%%ine De%#(&/en& o! Ju&i"e, petitioner,vs.HON. GILLER-O PRGANAN, P(ei)in* Ju)*e Re*ion#$ T(i#$ Cou(& o! -#ni$# #n)-ARC JI-ENE; #.


16/38

!y ote os. 45'%, 4%04 and 4(4' and accompanied !y duly authenticated documents re1uesting theetradition of Mar7 +. Jimene;, also 7no"n as Mario +atacan Crespo. 8pon receipt of the otes anddocuments, the secretary of foreign affairs =SFA> transmitted them to the secretary of $ustice =S2J> forappropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree =PD> o. &4-', also 7no"n as thetradition Ea".

8pon learning of the re1uest for his etradition, Jimene; sought and "as granted a Temporary)estraining 2rder =T)2> !y the )TC of Manila, +ranch 05. % The T)2 prohi!ited the Department ofJustice =D2J> from filing "ith the )TC a petition for his etradition. The validity of the T)2 "as, ho"ever,assailed !y the S2J in a Petition !efore this Court in the said ) o. &3'/-5. :nitially, the Court !y avote of '- dismissed the Petition. The S2J "as ordered to furnish private respondent copies of theetradition re1uest and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasona!le period "ithin "hich tofile a comment and supporting evidence. (

Acting on the Motion for )econsideration filed !y the S2J, this Court issued its 2cto!er &%, 0444)esolution. ' +y an identical vote of '- after three $ustices changed their votes it reconsidered andreversed its earlier Decision. :t held that private respondent "as !ereft of the right to notice and hearingduring the evaluation stage of the etradition process. This )esolution has !ecome final and eecutory.

Finding no more legal o!stacle, the overnment of the 8nited States of America, represented !y thePhilippine D2J, filed "ith the )TC on May &(, 044&, the appropriate Petition for tradition "hich "asdoc7eted as tradition Case o. 4&&'04-&. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimene; "as the su!$ectof an arrest "arrant issued !y the 8nited States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April&5, &'''. The "arrant had !een issued in connection "ith the follo"ing charges in :ndictment o. ''440(& C)S:TL9 =&> conspiracy to defraud the 8nited States and to commit certain offenses in violationof Title &( 8S Code Section 3%&< =0> ta evasion, in violation of Title 0- 8S Code Section %04&< =3> "irefraud, in violation of Title &( 8S Code Sections &3/3 and 0< =/> false statements, in violation of Title &( 8SCode Sections &44& and 0< and =5> illegal campaign contri!utions, in violation of Title 0 8S Code Sections//&!, //&f and /3%g=d> and Title &( 8S Code Section 0. :n order to prevent the flight of Jimene;, thePetition prayed for the issuance of an order for his *immediate arrest* pursuant to Section - of PD o.&4-'.

+efore the )TC could act on the Petition, )espondent Jimene; filed !efore it an *8rgentManifestation#Parte Motion,* &4 "hich prayed that petitioners application for an arrest "arrant !e set for hearing.

:n its assailed May 03, 044& 2rder, the )TC granted the Motion of Jimene; and set the case for hearingon June 5, 044&. :n that hearing, petitioner manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted !y thetrial court allo"ing the accused in an etradition case to !e heard prior to the issuance of a "arrant ofarrest.

After the hearing, the court a 1uo re1uired the parties to su!mit their respective memoranda. :n hisMemorandum, Jimene; sought an alternative prayer9 that in case a "arrant should issue, he !e allo"edto post !ail in the amount of P&44,444.

The alternative prayer of Jimene; "as also set for hearing on June &5, 044&. Thereafter, the court !elo"issued its 1uestioned July 3, 044& 2rder, directing the issuance of a "arrant for his arrest and fiing !ailfor his temporary li!erty at one million pesos in cash. && After he had surrendered his passport and postedthe re1uired cash !ond, Jimene; "as granted provisional li!erty via the challenged 2rder dated July /,044&. &0

?ence, this Petition. &3

Iue

Petitioner presents the follo"ing issues for the consideration of this Court9

:.

The pu!lic respondent acted "ithout or in ecess of $urisdiction or "ith grave a!use of discretionamounting to lac7 or ecess of $urisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential etraditee!efore issuing an arrest "arrant under Section - of PD o. &4-'.

::.


17/38

The pu!lic respondent acted "ithout or in ecess of $urisdiction or "ith grave a!use of discretionamounting to lac7 or ecess of $urisdiction in granting the prayer for !ail and in allo"ing Jimene; to go onprovisional li!erty !ecause9

Q&. An etradition court has no po"er to authori;e !ail, in the a!sence of any la" that provides forsuch po"er.

Q0. Section &3, Article ::: =right to !ail clause> of the &'(% Philippine Constitution and Section /,)ule &&/ =+ail> of the )ules of Court, as amended, "hich "ereN relied upon, cannot !e used as!ases for allo"ing !ail in etradition proceedings.

Q3. The presumption is against !ail in etradition proceedings or proceedings leading toetradition.

Q/. 2n the assumption that !ail is availa!le in etradition proceedings or proceedings leading toetradition, !ail is not a matter of right !ut only of discretion upon clear sho"ing !y the applicantof the eistence of special circumstances.

Q5. Assuming that !ail is a matter of discretion in etradition proceedings, the pu!lic respondent

received no evidence of Qspecial circumstances "hich may $ustify release on !ail.

Q-. The ris7 that Jimene; "ill flee is high, and no special circumstance eists that "ill engender a"ellfounded !elief that he "ill not flee.

Q%. The conditions attached to the grant of !ail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance !ythe Philippines "ith its o!ligations under the )P8S tradition Treaty.

Q(. The Court of Appeals )esolution promulgated on May &4, 044& in the case entitled Qduardo T.)odrigue; et al. vs. The ?on. Presiding Judge, )TC, +ranch &%, Manila, CA.). SP o. -/5(',relied upon !y the pu!lic respondent in granting !ail, had !een recalled !efore the issuance of thesu!$ect !ail orders.* &/

:n sum, the su!stantive 1uestions that this Court "ill address are9 =&> "hether Jimene; is entitled to noticeand hearing !efore a "arrant for his arrest can !e issued, and =0> "hether he is entitled to !ail and toprovisional li!erty "hile the etradition proceedings are pending. Preliminarily, "e shall ta7e up thealleged prematurity of the Petition for Certiorari arising from petitioners failure to file a Motion for)econsideration in the )TC and to see7 relief in the Court of Appeals =CA>, instead of in this Court. &5 Heshall also preliminarily discuss five etradition postulates that "ill guide us in disposing of the su!stantiveissues.

The Cou(&= Ru$in*

The Petition is meritorious.

P(e$i/in#(' -#&&e(

Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition

Petitioner su!mits the follo"ing $ustifications for not filing a Motion for )econsideration in the traditionCourt9 *=&> the issues "ere fully considered !y such court after re1uiring the parties to su!mit theirrespective memoranda and position papers on the matter and thus, the filing of a reconsideration motion"ould serve no useful purpose< =0> the assailed orders are a patent nullity, a!sent factual and legal !asistherefor< and =3> the need for relief is etremely urgent, as the passage of sufficient time "ould giveJimene; ample opportunity to escape and avoid etradition< and =/> the issues raised are purely of la".* &-

For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA, petitioner su!mits the follo"ing reasons9 *=&> even if

the petition is lodged "ith the Court of Appeals and such appellate court ta7es cogni;ance of the issuesand decides them, the parties "ould still !ring the matter to this ?onora!le Court to have the issuesresolved once and for all andN to have a !inding precedent that all lo"er courts ought to follo"< =0> the?onora!le Court of Appeals had in one case &% ruled on the issue !y disallo"ing !ail !ut the court !elo"refused to recogni;e the decision as a $udicial guide and all other courts might li7e"ise adopt the sameattitude of refusal< and =3> there are pending issues on !ail !oth in the etradition courts and the Court of

Appeals, "hich, unless guided !y the decision that this ?onora!le Court "ill render in this case, "ouldresolve to grant !ail in favor of the potential etraditees and "ould give them opportunity to flee and thus,


18/38

cause adverse effect on the a!ility of the Philippines to comply "ith its o!ligations under eistingetradition treaties.* &(

As a general rule, a petition for certiorari !efore a higher court "ill not prosper unless the inferior courthas !een given, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. Thisrule, though, has certain eceptions9 =&> "hen the issue raised is purely of la", =0> "hen pu!lic interest is

involved, or =3> in case of urgency. &'

As a fourth eception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of amotion for reconsideration !efore availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine 1ua non, "hen the1uestions raised are the same as those that have already !een s1uarely argued and ehaustively passedupon !y the lo"er court. 04 Aside from !eing of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve pure1uestions of la" that are of pu!lic interest. ?ence, a motion for reconsideration may !e dispensed "ith.

Ei7e"ise, this Court has allo"ed a direct invocation of its original $urisdiction to issue "rits of certiorari"hen there are special and important reasons therefor. 0& :n Fortich v. Corona 00 "e stated9

TNhe Supreme Court has the full discretionary po"er to ta7e cogni;ance of the petition fileddirectly !eforeN it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised,"arrant. This has !een the $udicial policy to !e o!served and "hich has !een reiterated insu!se1uent cases, namely9 8y vs. Contreras, et. al., Torres vs. Arran;, +ercero vs. De u;man,

and, Advincula vs. Eegaspi, et. al. As "e have further stated in Cuaresma9

Q . A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original $urisdiction to issue these "ritsshould !e allo"ed only "hen there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly

and specifically set out in the petition. This is esta!lished policy. .

Pursuant to said $udicial policy, "e resolve to ta7e primary $urisdiction over the present petition inthe interest of speedy $ustice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to thepresent controversy "hich, as correctly o!served !y petitioners, has spar7ed national interest!ecause of the magnitude of the pro!lem created !y the issuance of the assailed resolution.Moreover, re1uiring the petitioners to file their petition first "ith the Court of Appeals "ouldonly result in a "aste of time and money.

That the Court has the po"er to set aside its o"n rules in the higher interests of $ustice is "ellentrenchedin our $urisprudence. He reiterate "hat "e said in Pic;on vs. Court of Appeals9 03

Q+e it remem!ered that rules of procedure are !ut mere tools designed to facilitate the attainmentof $ustice. Their strict and rigid application, "hich "ould result in technicalities that tend tofrustrate rather than promote su!stantial $ustice, must al"ays !e avoided. Time and again, thisCourt has suspended its o"n rules and ecepted a particular case from their operation "heneverthe higher interests of $ustice so re1uire. :n the instant petition, "e forego a lengthy dis1uisition ofthe proper procedure that should have !een ta7en !y the parties involved and proceed directly tothe merits of the case.

:n a num!er of other eceptional cases, 0/ "e held as follo"s9

This Court has original $urisdiction, concurrent "ith that of )egional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, over petitions for certiorari, prohi!ition, mandamus, 1uo "arranto and ha!eas corpus,and "e entertain direct resort to us in cases "here special and important reasons or eceptionaland compelling circumstances $ustify the same.*

:n the interest of $ustice and to settle once and for all the important issue of !ail in etradition proceedings,"e deem it !est to ta7e cogni;ance of the present case. Such proceedings constitute a matter of firstimpression over "hich there is, as yet, no local $urisprudence to guide lo"er courts.

Five Postulates of Extradition

The su!stantive issues raised in this case re1uire an interpretation or construction of the treaty and the

la" on etradition. A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a la" is to ascertain and give effect toits intent. 05Since PD &4-' is intended as a guide for the implementation of etradition treaties to "hichthe Philippines is a signatory, 0- understanding certain postulates of etradition "ill aid us in properlydeciding the issues raised here.

1. E>&(#)i&ion I # -#?o( In&(u/en& !o( &he Su%%(eion o! C(i/e.


19/38

First, etradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime 0% !y facilitating thearrest and the custodial transfer 0( of a fugitive 0' from one state to the other.

Hith the advent of easier and faster means of international travel, the flight of affluent criminalsfrom one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has!ecome more fre1uent. Accordingly, governments are ad$usting their methods of dealing "ith

criminals and crimes that transcend international !oundaries.

Today, *a ma$ority of nations in the "orld community have come to loo7 upon etradition as thema$or effective instrument of international cooperation in the suppression of crime.* 34 :t is theonly regular system that has !een devised to return fugitives to the $urisdiction of a courtcompetent to try them in accordance "ith municipal and international la". 3&

An important practical effect of the recognition of the principle that criminals should!e restored to a $urisdiction competent to try and punish them is that the num!er ofcriminals see7ing refuge a!road "ill !e reduced. For to the etent that efficient means ofdetection and the threat of punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime"ithin the territorial limits of a State, so the eistence of effective etraditionarrangements and the conse1uent certainty of return to the locus delicti commissi play a

corresponding role in the deterrence of flight a!road in order to escape the conse1uenceof crime. . From an a!sence of etradition arrangements flight a!road !y theingenious criminal receives direct encouragement and thus indirectly does thecommission of crime itself.* 30

:n Secretary v. Eantion 33 "e eplained9

The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one "ay to do it isto facilitate the etradition of persons covered !y treaties duly entered intoN !y our government.More and more, crimes are !ecoming the concern of one "orld. Ea"s involving crimes and crimeprevention are undergoing universali;ation. 2ne manifest purpose of this trend to"ardsglo!ali;ation is to deny easy refuge to a criminal "hose activities threaten the peace andprogress of civili;ed countries. :t is to the great interest of the Philippines to !e part of this

irreversi!le movement in light of its vulnera!ility to crimes, especially transnational crimes.*

:ndeed, in this era of glo!ali;ation, easier and faster international travel, and an epanding ring ofinternational crimes and criminals, "e cannot afford to !e an isolationist state. He need to cooperate "ithother states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our o"n country.

2. The Re@ue&in* S&e i$$ A""o() Due P(o"e &o &he A""ue)

Second, an etradition treaty presupposes that !oth parties thereto have eamined, and that !oth acceptand trust, each others legal system and $udicial process. 3/ More pointedly, our duly authori;edrepresentatives signature on an etradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the"illingness of the other state to protect the !asic rights of the person sought to !e etradited. 35 Thatsignature signifies our full faith that the accused "ill !e given, upon etradition to the re1uesting state, allrelevant and !asic rights in the criminal proceedings that "ill ta7e place therein< other"ise, the treaty"ould not have !een signed, or "ould have !een directly attac7ed for its unconstitutionality.

. The P(o"ee)in* A(e Sui Gene(i

Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Eantion, 3- etradition proceedings are not criminal innature. :n criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore< in etradition "hich issui generis in a class !y itself they are not.

An etradition proceedingN is sui generis. :t is not a criminal proceeding "hich "ill call intooperation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed !y the +ill of )ights. To !egin "ith, theprocess of etradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused.

?is guilt or innocence "ill !e ad$udged in the court of the state "here he "ill !e etradited.?ence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence ofan accused cannot !e invo7ed !y an etraditee .

There are other differences !et"een an etradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Anetradition proceeding is summary in nature "hile criminal proceedings involve a full!lo"n trial.:n contradistinction to a criminal proceeding, the rules of evidence in an etradition proceeding


20/38

allo" admission of evidence under less stringent standards. :n terms of the 1uantum of evidenceto !e satisfied, a criminal case re1uires proof !eyond reasona!le dou!t for conviction "hile afugitive may !e ordered etradited Qupon sho"ing of the eistence of a prima facie case. Finally,unli7e in a criminal case "here $udgment !ecomes eecutory upon !eing rendered final, in anetradition proceeding, our courts may ad$udge an individual etradita!le !ut the President hasthe final discretion to etradite him. The 8nited States adheres to a similar practice "here!y theSecretary of State eercises "ide discretion in !alancing the e1uities of the case and thedemands of the nations foreign relations !efore ma7ing the ultimate decision to etradite.*

iven the foregoing, it is evident that the etradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or theinnocence of the person sought to !e etradited. 3% Such determination during the etradition proceedings"ill only result in needless duplication and delay. tradition is merely a measure of international $udicialassistance through "hich a person charged "ith or convicted of a crime is restored to a $urisdiction "iththe !est claim to try that person. :t is not part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into1uestions that are the prerogative of that $urisdiction. 3( The ultimate purpose of etradition proceedings incourt is only to determine "hether the etradition re1uest complies "ith the tradition Treaty, and"hether the person sought is etradita!le. 3'

4. Co/%$i#n"e Sh#$$ +e in Goo) F#i&h.

Fourth, our eecutive !ranch of government voluntarily entered into the tradition Treaty, and ourlegislative !ranch ratified it. ?ence, the Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation "ill servethe national interest.

Fulfilling our o!ligations under the tradition Treaty promotes comity /4 "ith the re1uesting state. 2n theother hand, failure to fulfill our o!ligations thereunder paints a !ad image of our country !efore the "orldcommunity. Such failure "ould discourage other states from entering into treaties "ith us, particularly anetradition treaty that hinges on reciprocity. /&

erily, "e are !ound !y pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith "ith our o!ligations under theTreaty. /0 This principle re1uires that "e deliver the accused to the re1uesting country if the conditionsprecedent to etradition, as set forth in the Treaty, are satisfied. :n other "ords, *tNhe demanding

government, "hen it has done all that the treaty and the la" re1uire it to do, is entitled to the delivery ofthe accused on the issue of the proper "arrant, and the other government is under o!ligation to ma7e thesurrender.* /3 Accordingly, the Philippines must !e ready and in a position to deliver the accused, should it!e found proper.

5. The(e I #n n)e($'in* Ri< o! F$i*h&

Fifth, persons to !e etradited are presumed to !e flight ris7s. This prima facie presumption findsreinforcement in the eperience // of the eecutive !ranch9 nothing short of confinement can ensure thatthe accused "ill not flee the $urisdiction of the re1uested state in order to th"art their etradition to there1uesting state.

The present etradition case further validates the premise that persons sought to !e etradited have apropensity to flee. :ndeed,

etradition hearings "ould not even !egin, if only the accused "ere "illing to su!mit to trial in there1uesting country. /5 Prior acts of herein respondent =&> leaving the re1uesting state right !efore theconclusion of his indictment proceedings there< and =0> remaining in the re1uested state despite learningthat the re1uesting state is see7ing his return and that the crimes he is charged "ith are !aila!le elo1uently spea7 of his aversion to the processes in the re1uesting state, as "ell as his predisposition toavoid them at all cost. These circumstances point to an everpresent, underlying high ris7 of flight. ?e hasdemonstrated that he has the capacity and the "ill to flee. ?aving fled once, "hat is there to stop him,given sufficient opportunity, from fleeing a second timeO

Fi(& Sun&ie IueB :s )espondent ntitled to otice and ?earing +efore the :ssuance of a Harrantof ArrestO

Petitioner contends that the procedure adopted !y the )TC informing the accused, a fugitive from $ustice, that an tradition Petition has !een filed against him, and that petitioner is see7ing his arrest gives him notice to escape and to avoid etradition. Moreover, petitioner pleads that such procedure mayset a dangerous precedent, in that those sought to !e etradited including terrorists, mass murderersand "ar criminals may invo7e it in future etradition cases.


21/38

2n the other hand, )espondent Jimene; argues that he should not !e hurriedly and ar!itrarily deprived of his constitutional right to li!erty "ithout due process. ?e further asserts that there is as yet no specific la"or rule setting forth the procedure prior to the issuance of a "arrant of arrest, after the petition foretradition has !een filed in court< ergo, the formulation of that procedure is "ithin the discretion of thepresiding $udge.

+oth parties cite Section - of PD &4-' in support of their arguments. :t states9

SC. -. :ssuance of Summons< Temporary Arrest< ?earing, Service of otices. =&> :mmediatelyupon receipt of the petition, the presiding $udge of the court shall, as soon as practica!le,summon the accused to appear and to ans"er the petition on the day and hour fied in the order.?Ne may issue a "arrant for the immediate arrest of the accused "hich may !e served any"here "ithin the Philippines if it appears to the presiding $udge that the immediate arrest andtemporary detention of the accused "ill !est serve the ends of $ustice. 8pon receipt of theans"er, or should the accused after having received the summons fail to ans"er "ithin the timefied, the presiding $udge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof.

=0> The order and notice as "ell as a copy of the "arrant of arrest, if issued, shall !e promptlyserved each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case.* =mphasis ours>

Does this provision sanction )TC Judge Purganans act of immediately setting for hearing the issuance of a "arrant of arrestO He rule in the negative.

1. On &he +#i o! &he E>&(#)i&ion L#

:t is significant to note that Section - of PD &4-', our tradition Ea", uses the "ord *immediate* to1ualify the arrest of the accused. This 1ualification "ould !e rendered nugatory !y setting for hearing theissuance of the arrest "arrant. ?earing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, /- receiving factsand arguments /% from them, /( and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments.

Arrest su!se1uent to a hearing can no longer !e considered *immediate.* The la" could not haveintended the "ord as a mere superfluity !ut, on the "hole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgencyand s"iftness in the determination of "hether a "arrant of arrest should !e issued.

+y using the phrase *if it appears,* the la" further conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed atsuch early stage. The trial court is not epected to ma7e an ehaustive determination to ferret out the trueand actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the 7no"ledge and the material thenavaila!le to it, the court is epected mer

Documents

Consti 2 Recit