View full case

VICTORIO ALERIA v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ

FACTS:

The case subject of the present Petition for Certiorari involves two Orders issued by the respondent Judge. The first Order, dated July 19, 1996, denied the petitioner's Petition to Admit Bail. The second Order, dated September 2, 1996, denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the July 19 Order.

The petitioner is being accused in Criminal Case No. 95-394 for Illegal Possession of Firearms and in Criminal Case No. 95-395 for Murder. Both cases arose from the same incident and are being tried jointly by the respondent Judge.

The petitioner initially filed a Petition to Admit Bail in both cases, but the respondent Judge denied it through the July 19 Order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied by the respondent Judge through the September 2 Order.

In response to the denial of bail and seeking the respondent Judge's inhibition from further trying the case, the petitioner filed the present petition. The Office of the Solicitor-General, in its comment, argued that the two orders denying bail were defective and should be set aside. On the other hand, the petitioner disagreed with the solicitor-general's comment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Orders denying petitioner's Petition to Admit Bail and Motion for Reconsideration are valid.

  2. Whether respondent Judge should be ordered to inhibit himself from further trying the case.

RULING:

  1. The Orders denying petitioner's Petition to Admit Bail and Motion for Reconsideration are not valid. They do not contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by the conclusion of respondent Judge whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. These Orders are defective in form and substance and cannot be allowed to stand.

  2. The issue of whether respondent Judge should be ordered to inhibit himself from further trying the case was not resolved in this excerpt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to deny a petition for bail, the court must provide a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

  • Orders denying bail that do not contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution and a conclusion as to the strength of the evidence are considered defective in form and substance.