View full case

PEOPLE v. PROCORO DONATO

FACTS:

The case involves a petition filed by the People of the Philippines seeking to set aside the order granting bail to the accused in a rebellion case. The accused, Rodolfo Salas, and his co-accused were charged with rebellion under the Revised Penal Code. The accused initially filed a motion to quash the information but it was denied. Instead of seeking reconsideration, the accused filed a petition for bail, which was opposed by the petitioner. The President issued an executive order repealing certain laws and restoring the original penalty for rebellion. The respondent judge, considering the executive order, granted the accused's petition for bail.

The petitioner, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, filed a motion to remand the case to the trial court, arguing that the offense of rebellion should not be bailable and that the accused posed a danger to society. The trial court granted bail to the accused, stating that with the effectivity of the executive order, the offense of rebellion is now bailable. The petitioner filed a motion to increase the bail amount, citing a Department of Justice Circular. The petitioner also filed a supplemental motion, requesting the court to deny bail based on the accused's past evasions and the ongoing threat posed by his involvement in rebellion.

The petitioner filed a petition seeking the denial of bail to the accused, arguing that the State's interest in self-preservation prevails over the individual's right to bail. The petitioner also cited American precedents on the detention of potentially dangerous individuals pending trial. The respondent judge denied the petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration and increased the amount of bail. The petitioner then filed this petition, arguing that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

The petitioner contended that the accused was estopped from invoking his right to bail, as he had waived it in a previous case. The petitioner also argued that the right to bail is not absolute when there is evidence that the accused is a serious threat to the State. The petitioner claimed that the respondent judge did not allow them to present evidence in support of their opposition to bail and failed to consider the accused's criminal background, the gravity of the charge, and the likelihood of flight when fixing the amount of bail.

A temporary restraining order was issued. The accused filed a comment asking for the dismissal of the petition and the lifting of the temporary restraining order, arguing that he never waived his right to bail as mandated by the Constitution. The accused also claimed that the petitioner's right to present evidence was non-existent or waived and that the temporary restraining order violated his right to bail and due process.

The court ordered both parties to file their memoranda. The petitioner and the accused requested to be excused from filing their memoranda. The Solicitor General filed his stand on the issues, supporting the petition and arguing that the orders of the respondent judge should be annulled and set aside. The court then discussed the issues presented in the case, stating that the accused cannot be denied bail as he is charged with the bailable offense of rebellion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether bail can be denied to the accused despite the offense being charged being punishable by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00.

  2. Whether bail becomes a matter of discretion if the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt is strong.

  3. Whether the prosecution has the right to present evidence for the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of right.

  4. Whether the bond amount fixed by the respondent court can be determined without hearing the prosecution.

  5. Whether the amendatory law on rebellion can be applied retroactively to the private respondent.

  6. Whether the private respondent has waived his right to bail.

  7. Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be withdrawn.

  8. Whether Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion should be released.

  9. Whether the warrant of arrest for Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion should be recalled.

  10. Whether private respondent waived his right to bail by agreeing to remain in legal custody during the pendency of his trial.

  11. Whether such waiver is valid.

  12. Whether the right to bail is a constitutional right that can be waived.

  13. Whether the grant of bail to the private respondent was proper.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that bail cannot be denied to the accused. The offense charged, which is rebellion as defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, is a bailable offense under Section 13 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

  2. The Court held that if the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail becomes a matter of discretion. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. Once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.

  3. The prosecution does not have the right to present evidence for the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of right.

  4. The bond amount cannot be determined without hearing the prosecution. Certain guidelines in fixing the amount of bail call for the presentation of evidence and a reasonable opportunity for the prosecution to refute it.

  5. The amendatory law on rebellion cannot be applied retroactively to the private respondent as it is not favorable to him.

  6. The private respondent has waived his right to bail.

  7. The petition for habeas corpus is to be withdrawn.

  8. Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion are to be immediately released on their personal recognizance but must appear at the trial of the criminal case for rebellion filed against them.

  9. The warrant of arrest for Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion is deemed recalled in view of their formal manifestation to submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their person.

  10. Yes, private respondent waived his right to bail by agreeing to remain in legal custody. The parties in G.R. No. 76009 stipulated that private respondent will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person. The language used in the agreement emphasized that private respondent will not be released and should remain in custody. The distinction made between legal custody and court having custody over the person was intended to emphasize the agreement that private respondent shall not be released.

  11. The waiver of the right to bail by private respondent is valid. Waiver is defined as a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known existing legal right. The Civil Code provides that rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. In this case, private respondent voluntarily and intentionally waived his right to bail by agreeing to remain in legal custody during the pendency of his trial.

  12. The right to bail is a constitutional right that can be waived. The court ruled that the right to bail is a personal privilege of the accused and its waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

  13. The grant of bail to the private respondent was not proper. The court found that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the private respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Before conviction, bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. (Section 3, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court)

  • The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. (Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution)

  • Bail becomes a matter of discretion if the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt is strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. Once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.

  • Bail is a matter of right, except in cases of capital offenses where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great.

  • Due process requires that the prosecution be given an opportunity to present evidence within a reasonable time for cases where the grant of bail is discretionary.

  • The guidelines for fixing the amount of bail provided in the Rules of Court should consider the nature and circumstances of the crime, character and reputation of the accused, weight of evidence against him, probability of the accused appearing at trial, whether the accused is a fugitive from justice, and whether the accused is under bond in another case.

  • Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in favor of the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as long as a final sentence has not been pronounced and the convict is not serving the same.

  • Waiver of the right to bail can be implied from the actions or conduct of the accused.

  • Parties may agree to withdraw a petition for habeas corpus and release certain detainees on certain conditions.

  • Warrants of arrest may be deemed recalled upon the manifestation of the accused's willingness to submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction.

  • The term "in custody of the law" refers to actual imprisonment or detention.

  • The purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from imprisonment until conviction while securing his or her appearance at trial.

  • The waiver of a right, including the right to bail, is valid unless it is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a recognized right.

  • The doctrine of waiver extends to rights and privileges of any character.

  • A person may waive any matter that affects his property or any alienable right or privilege he is legally entitled to, provided that it does not infringe on the rights of others, contravene public policy, or violate the law.

  • Rights guaranteed by the Constitution fall into two classes: those in which the state is interested and those that are personal to the accused and can be waived.

  • Constitutional rights can be waived, subject to certain requirements.

  • The right to bail is a constitutional right that can be waived if it does not contravene any public right or harm a third party with a recognized right.