Skip to main content

DUTIES OF JUDGES IN BAIL APPLICATION

In the light of the applicable rules on bail and the jurisprudential principles just enunciated, this Court reiterates the duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is filed:

(1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended);

(2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion (Sections 7 and 8, supra);

(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution (Baylon v. Sison, supra);

(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond. (Section 19, supra). Otherwise, petition should be denied.

The above-enumerated procedure should now leave no room for doubt as to the duties of the trial judge in cases of bail applications. So basic and fundamental is it to conduct a hearing in connection with the grant of bail in the proper cases that it would amount to judicial apostasy for any member of the judiciary to disclaim knowledge or awareness thereof. A judge owes it to the public and the administration of justice to know the law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy. He is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. There will be faith in the administration of justice only if there be a belief on the part of litigants that the occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of a deficiency in their grasp of legal principles. (A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335 March 5, 1997, INOCENCIO BASCO, complainant, vs.JUDGE LEO M. RAPATALO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Agoo, La Union, respondent)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 318 OF RPC

1. MARIA C. OSORIO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 207711, JULY 02,  For an accused to be held criminally liable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must exist: (a) [The accused makes a] false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in [Articles 315, 316, and 317]; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. (Citation omitted) All the elements of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case. Petitioner, in soliciting private complainant's money, falsely represented that it would be invested in Philam Life and that its proceeds would be used to pay for private complainant's insurance premiums. This false representation is what induced private complainant to part with her funds and disregard the payment of her insurance premiums. Sinc...
Post a Comment
Read more

GRAVE THREATS

ART. 282.  Grave threats . — Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer: 1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed. If the threat made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. The penalty of  arresto mayor  and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition . In the case of  SANTIAGO PAERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011, the Supreme Court said; Article 282 of the RPC h...
Post a Comment
Read more

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

JAYLORD DIMAL AND ALLAN CASTILLO,   v.   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,  G.R. No. 216922, April 18, 2018. With respect to the items under Return on the Search Warrant indicated as "articles recovered/seized in plain view during the conduct of the search ," it is well settled that objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. For the "plain view doctrine" to apply, it is required that the following requisites are present: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. As explained in  People v. Salanguit ...
Post a Comment
Read more