View full case

PEOPLE v. LUZVIMINDA S. VALDEZ

FACTS:

The case involves accusations against Luzviminda Valdez, the former mayor of Bacolod City, for the reimbursement of expenses obtained through falsified documents. Two State Auditors executed a Joint Affidavit, alleging that Valdez overclaimed a total amount of P274,306.75. The Office of the Ombudsman received the joint affidavit and charged Valdez with eight cases, four for Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and four for the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents. Valdez filed a Motion to Set Aside No Bail Recommendation and to Fix the Amount of Bail, arguing that the cases are bailable as a matter of right. The petitioner opposed this motion, stating that bail is discretionary since the charges have a penalty of reclusion perpetua. Valdez also filed an Urgent Supplemental Motion to recall/lift the warrant of arrest issued against her. On October 10, 2014, the Sandiganbayan granted Valdez's motions and fixed the bail for each offense charged in the amount of P200,000. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration, arguing that an accused indicted for a complex crime involving an amount exceeding P22,000.00 is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. Valdez objected to the petition, stating that it should be dismissed for failing to file a motion for reconsideration.

The petitioner argues that he should be granted bail as a matter of right, even though he is charged with an offense whose penalty is reclusion perpetua. The petitioner emphasizes the conflicting views within the anti-graft court regarding this issue. The petitioner asserts that resolving this question is urgent due to its implications on similar cases pending before the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner insists that filing a motion for reconsideration would be futile since the issue raised is purely a question of law. The petitioner cites the case of Mañalac, Jr. v. People, which stated that an accused charged with Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents, with an amount exceeding P22,000.00, is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. However, the petitioner argues that this ruling should be revisited, as it was rendered in the context of a judgment of conviction and does not apply to a bail application. The petitioner contends that bail should be granted as a matter of right to an accused charged with the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents, where the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00.

ISSUES:

  1. How should the term "punishable" be construed in relation to the provisions on bail in the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?

  2. What is the imposable penalty for the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents involving an amount that exceeds P22,000.00?

  3. Whether the penalty to be considered for purposes of determining bail should be the imposable penalty prescribed by law or the penalty to be actually imposed.

  4. Whether the offense of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Official/Public Documents is a complex crime.

  5. Whether the accused should be granted bail as a matter of right.

  6. Whether an accused charged with the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents, involving an amount in excess of P22,000.00, is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

  7. Whether the accused in this case is entitled to bail based on the aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth or the comprehensive bail bond guide.

RULING:

  1. The term "punishable" refers to the prescribed penalty, not the imposable penalty. The prescribed penalty is the initial penalty prescribed for the offense, while the imposable penalty is the penalty to be imposed after considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances. For the purpose of bail, the prescribed penalty is considered. Thus, an accused charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong is not entitled to bail, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

  2. The imposable penalty for the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents involving an amount that exceeds P22,000.00 is reclusion perpetua. The prescribed penalty for the offense is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, and the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua in view of the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of falsification. The penalty actually imposed is also reclusion perpetua.

  3. The penalty to be considered for purposes of determining bail should be the imposable penalty prescribed by law. Illustrative cases have confirmed this principle. The use of the term "punishable" in the Constitution and the Rules of Court, which practically bears the same meaning as "imposable," reinforces this interpretation.

  4. The offense of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Official/Public Documents is a complex crime. The penalty imposable for the most serious offense, which in this case is Malversation, is the penalty that should be considered.

  5. The accused should be granted bail as a matter of right. At this point, there is no certainty that the accused will be found guilty of the complex crime charged. Falsification, as an element of the complex crime, must be alleged and proved during the trial. Denying bail and granting it only after trial, if it turns out that no complex crime was committed, would be absurd and unjust. The offense of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Official/Public Documents, even if involving a large amount, is not considered a capital offense or a heinous crime.

  6. An accused charged with the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents, involving an amount in excess of P22,000.00, is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The distinction in the entitlement to bail between capital offenses and non-capital offenses is glaringly unfair and could not have been contemplated by the law.

  7. The accused in this case is entitled to bail based on the latest Bailbond Guide. The bail amount should correspond to the medium penalty multiplied by Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for every year of imprisonment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The term "punishable" in relation to bail refers to the prescribed penalty, not the imposable penalty.

  • The prescribed penalty is the initial penalty prescribed for the offense, while the imposable penalty is the penalty to be imposed after considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

  • An accused charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong is not entitled to bail, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

  • The imposable penalty for the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents involving an amount that exceeds P22,000.00 is reclusion perpetua.

  • For purposes of determining bail, the imposable penalty prescribed by law should be considered, not the penalty to be actually imposed.

  • Offenses charged as complex crimes should have each element alleged and proved during trial. The full-blown trial will determine whether a complex crime was committed or only one of the constituent offenses.

  • Rule of lenity - When faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one prejudicial to the accused and another favorable to him, the court should adopt the interpretation more lenient to the accused.

  • Construction of penal statutes - Penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. In case of doubt on the interpretation of criminal laws, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  • Application of penal laws - Penal laws should not be applied mechanically. The court must determine whether their application is consistent with the purpose and reason of the law.

  • Affirmative relief despite accused being at-large - A summary hearing on bail application is unnecessary for an accused who is still at-large. The accused can obtain affirmative relief from the court even without surrendering to custody.

  • Waiver of defense of lack of jurisdiction - The mere application for reliefs sought by the defendant, such as a motion to set aside no bail recommendation and to fix the amount of bail, constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.