7/28/2019 People v Dacudao
1/2
PEOPLE v DACUDAO
FACTS:An Information for Murder with the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evidentpremeditation was filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch XIV, presided
byrespondent Judge Renato C. Dacudao, against accused Rey
Christopher Paclibar andNero Desamparado for the death of Cesarlito
Nolasco.
Accused Rey Christopher Paclibar filed a motion for bail,
furnishing the Provincial Fiscalof Cebu with a copy thereof.
Without conducting a hearing in the application for bail,
respondent Judge summarilyissued the following Order:
Considering the motion for bail and the opposition thereto, and,
on the basis of thecomplaint at bar and the sworn statement of
Patrolman Elpidio Desquitado, Tadeo Abelloand Romeo Torrizo all of
the Integrated National Police, Bantayan (Cebu) Police
Station,which constitute the essential evidence (so far) of the
prosecution in this case, this Courthereby resolves to grant the
motion for bail presented by Atty. Bernardito A. Florida and
to this end hereby fixes the bailbond for the accused Rey
Christopher Paclibar atP50,000.00.SO ORDERED.
Private prosecutor Alex R. Monteclar filed for a motion for
consideration
Judge Dacudao as a reply issued another order:'The Court hereby
resolves to hold in abeyance its resolution on the Prosecution's
motionfor reconsideration of the Court's order dated September 29,
1987 granting bail to theaccused, pending the presentation by the
Prosecution of evidence, which it promised topresent, in support of
its proposition that the evidence of guilt against the accused in
thiscase is strong, and that therefore the accused should not have
been admitted to bail.
Unless and until the prosecution adduces the requisite evidence,
the Court sees noreason to reconsider its order of September 29,
1987 which was predicated upon thepostulate that the Prosecution
evidence thus far attached to the records does not makeout a very
strong case for murder xxx.
Hence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorariISSUE:W/N the
prosecution was deprived of procedural due process on account of
the grant ofbail to the accused without any hearing on the motion
for bail? Yes.W/N the alleged crime is bailable? No.HELD:1. 1.The
respondent court acted irregularly in granting bail in a murder
case without anyhearing on the motion asking for it, without
bothering to ask the prosecution for its
conformity or comment, and, as it turned out later, over its
strong objections. The courtgranted bail on the sole basis of the
complaint and the affidavits of three policemen, notone of whom
apparently witnessed the killing. Whatever the court possessed at
the timeit issued the questioned rulingwas intended only forprima
facie determining whether or notthere is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that the crime was committed
andpinpointing the persons who probably committed it. Whether or
not the evidence of guilt isstrong for each individual accused
still has to be established unless the prosecution submitsthe issue
on whatever it has already presented. To appreciate the strength or
weakness ofthe evidence of guilt, the prosecution must be consulted
or heard. It is equally entitled as theaccused to due process.
2. The defense counsel insists that the accused should be
entitled to bail consideringthe abolition of the death penalty in
the 1986 Constitution. He advances the argument
that due to the abolition of the death penalty, murder is no
longer a capital offense beingno longer punishable with death. This
is erroneous because although the Constitutionstates that the death
penalty may not be imposed unless a law orders its imposition
for
7/28/2019 People v Dacudao
2/2
heinous crimes (Constitution, Art. III, Section 19 [1], it does
not follow that all personsaccused of any crime whatsoever now have
an absolute right to bail. In Art. 111, Sec. 13of the Constitution,
"capital offenses" is replaced by the phrase "offenses punishableby
reclusion perpetua."Bail is not a matter of right as regards
persons charged with offenses punishable byreclusion perpetua when
the evidence of guilt is strong. Thus, Sec. 5, Art. 114 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a hearing before resolving
a motion for bail bypersons charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua where the prosecutionmay discharge its burden of
showing that the evidence of guilt is strong. The case at bar,which
is murder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
