People V. Donato [mendiola].docx

People v. Donato G.R. 79269 – June 5, 1991 J. Davide, Jr. Topic: Right to Bail Petitioners: People of the Philippines Respondents: Hon. Procoro Donato, in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Manila Branch XII; and Rodolfo Salas, alias “Commander Bilog” FACTS:  September 29, 1986: Respondent Rodolfo Salas, Josefina Cruz, and Jose Concepcion were arrested in Philippine General Hospital, Taft Avenue, and charged with the crime of rebellion under Art. 134, in relation to Art. 135, of the RPC. o Before the Information was filed against the three accused, Salas escaped from military detention and a reward of P250,000 was offered for his capture. o The Information stated: 1. The accused were among the leaders of the Communist Party of the PH; its military arm, the NPA; and its mass infiltration network, the National Democratic Front. 2. Before 1968 until present (1986), they rose publicly and took arms against the govt. all throughout the country, with the goal of overthrowing the govt. or removing allegiance thereto any of the country’s territory. 3. Salas specifically was Chairman of the Communist Party and head of the NPA.  October 3, 1968: After the information was filed, a petition for habeas corpus for the accused was filed against Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fidel Ramos, etc., to produce the bodies of the accused and explain why they had been arrested and detained. o A writ for habeas corpus was issued by the Court. o Ultimately, however, the petition was dismissed on the basis of an agreement made by the parties – where Salas will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court, but the warrants for arrest of Cruz and Conception will be recalled. They will be released immediately, but still face trial.  November 7, 1968: Salas filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense; that the Court has no jurisdiction over him or the other defendants; and that their liability has been extinguished. o The petitioner (People of the PH) opposed this, citing Salas’ concession in the agreement that he would remain in the court’s custody. o March 6, 1987: Respondent Judge Donato denied the Motion.  May 9, 1987: Instead of asking for a reconsideration, Salas filed a petition for bail. o The petitioner opposed this on the ground that since rebellion became a capital offense under PDs 1996, 942, & 1834 – which amended RPC Art. 135 – those who promote, maintain, or head a rebellion were now punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and were no longer entitled to bail if evidence of his guilt was strong. o June 5, 1987: The President issued EO 187, repealing the aforementioned PDs and restoring Art. 135 to full effect. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000 was reinstated. o July 7, 1987: Taking into consideration EO 187, Judge Donato granted Salas’ petition for bail and fixed the bail bond at P30,000, so long as he reports to court once every 2 months. 4. Since rebellion was again punishable with the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000, it was a bailable offense under Sec. 13, Art. 3, 1986 Constitution and Sec. 3, Rule 114, Rules of Criminal Procedure. 5. In non-capital offenses before final judgment, bail was now a matter of right.







The petitioner contended that it would be dangerous to grant Salas bail considering his stature in the CPP and NPA. If he was released, he would be able to return to his organizations and threaten the very existence of the Philippine govt. o While Judge Donato recognized the “clash between the accused’s constitutional right to bail in a non-capital offense, which is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and the existence of the government that bestows such a right,” he ruled that the conflict should be resolved in favor of the individual, who is alone in his assertion of rights against the powerful state. 6. The petitioner’s fear may or not be realized, but such fear cannot be reason to deny the respondent bail. The law explicitly says that in bailable offenses, the accused has a right to bail. Dura est lex sed lex. In a MFR, the petitioner asked that the court increase bail from P30,000 to P100,000 – alleging that under DOJ Circular 10, bail should be computed at P10,000 per year of imprisonment based on the medium penalty imposable for the offense; also, the respondent had escaped from military custody in the past, and the ultimate goal of his rebellious actions had yet to be realized. o Petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion, indirectly asking the court to deny bail, and asking it to allow the presentation of evidence in support thereof, considering the “inevitable probability that the accused will not comply with the condition of his bail – to appear in court for trial.” o Petitioner’s Arguments: 7. Salas evaded the authorities for 13 years; escaped military detention; had no known address; was found using the false name “Manuel Mercado Castro”; and was found to be using a private vehicle whose registered owner’s identity was false. 8. When the State’s interest conflicts with that of an individual, that of the State should prevail for “the right of the State to self-preservation is paramount to any of the individual’s rights in the Bill of Rights.” 9. In the USA, it had been held there is no absolute barrier to the detention of potentially dangerous resident aliens pending deportation proceedings; an arrestee may be incarcerated until trial as he is a flight risk; and no condition of release can be allowed to threaten the safety of individuals. o Jude Donato found the Supplemental Motion to be without merit, but partially granted the first MFR, increasing bail from P30,000 to P50,000, with the same condition that he report to court every 2 months. 10. Before the decision, the petitioner conceded the right of Salas to bail, and only asked to increase the amount of said bail. 11. The US precedents did not apply since they involved the deportation of aliens, and their Constitution does not ensure the right to bail in bailable offenses – only an injunction against excessive bail. Petitioner filed this petition, alleging that Judge Donato had acted with GAD and in excess of his jurisdiction. o Petitioner Claims: 12. Salas is estopped from invoking his right to bail, having expressly waived it in the agreement made in his criminal case. 13. The right to bail is not absolute, even in non-capital offenses, when there is prima facie evidence that the accused is a serious threat to the very existence of the State – in which prosecution must be allowed to present evidence for the denial of bail. o The SolGen, in his manifestation, agreed with the petitioner. o The Court granted a TRO, ordering Donato to desist from implementing his order, and granting Salas bail in the amount of P50,000.

ISSUES + HELD: 1. W/N a person charged with a bailable offense may be denied his right to bail under certain circumstances – NO. o The respondent cannot be denied bail as he is charged with a crime which attaches the penalty of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000.

14. Sec. 13, Art. 3, 1987 Consti: All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be prescribed by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. 15. Sec. 3, Rule 114, ROC: All persons in custody shall, before final conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with a capital offense or an offense which, under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. o Before conviction, bail is a matter of right when the offense is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. To that extent, the right is absolute. o People v. Hernandez: Despite the fact that the accused was already convicted, albeit erroneously, for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murders, arsons, and robberies – and sentenced to life imprisonment, the Court granted bail in the amount of P30,000 during the pendency of his appeal. 16. “Individual freedom is too basic, too transcendental and vital in a republic state like ours, to be derived upon mere general principles and abstract consideration of public safety.” 17. The preservation of liberty is such a major preoccupation of our political system that the framers of the Consti devoted numerous paragraphs of Section 1 of the Bill of Rights to the protection of several aspects of freedom. o The Consti strengthens further the right to bail by explicitly providing that it shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, overturning the Court's ruling in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, which stated that “the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must, indeed, carry with it the suspension of the right to bail.” o If the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, however, bail becomes a matter of discretion. 18. 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. 2. W/N prosecution should have been allowed to present evidence for the denial of bail – NO. o When bail is a matter of right, the prosecution does not have the right to present evidence for the denial of bail. 19. However, in cases where the grant of bail is discretionary, due process requires that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all its evidence before the court resolves the motion for bail. o Since Salas was entitled to bail as a matter of right, the prosecution was not entitled to present evidence for the denial of such. 3. W/N the respondent judge erred in fixing the bond at P30,000, then P50,000, without hearing the prosecution – YES. o The guidelines for fixing of the amount of bail, provided for in Sec. 10, Rule 114, ROC are not entirely left to the discretion of the court. o People vs. Dacudao: “Certain guidelines in the fixing of a bail bond call for the presentation of evidence and reasonable opportunity for the prosecution to refute it. Among them are the nature and circumstances of the crime, character and reputation of the accused, the weight of the evidence against him, the probability of the accused appearing at the trial, whether or not the accused is a fugitive from justice, and whether or not the accused is under bond in other case.” o Here, petitioner has made sufficient allegations which necessitate the grant of an opportunity to be heard for the purpose of determining the amount of bail – but not for the denial thereof. 4. W/N RA 6968 can apply to Salas – NO.

o

Due to the approval (on October 24, 1990) and effectivity of RA 6968, rebellion is no longer punishable by prision mayor and a fine of P20,000, but is now punishable by reclusion perpetua. o However, the law cannot apply to Salas for acts allegedly committed prior to its effectivity as this would not be favorable to him. 20. RPC Art. 22: Retroactive effect of penal laws – “Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.” 5. W/N Salas waived his right to bail – YES. o The Court agrees with the petitioner that the respondent waived his right to bail during the pendency of his criminal case. o On October 14, 1986, after the Court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for Salas and his co-accused, the parties entered into an agreement wherein the petition for habeas corpus will be withdrawn, Cruz and Concepcion will be released, and Salas “will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person.” o Respondent claims: 21. In their petition for habeas corpus, they questioned the legality of the arrest and their continued detention, which was not resolved by the court but left for determination in another proceeding. 22. The matter of right to bail was not raised. 23. After the agreement was made, the respondent filed a Motion to Quash and a Petition for Bail – which were assertions of his rights to be granted liberty. 24. The term “legal custody,” as used in the Manifestation, simply means that he agreed to continue to be in the custody of the law (or in custodia legis) and nothing else; it is not to be interpreted as a waiver. o When the parties stipulated that “Salas will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person,” they meant that Salas will remain in actual physical custody of the court – as opposed to his co-accused, who were to be released from detention. 25. Note should be made of the deliberate care of the parties in making a distinction between “legal custody” and “court having custody over the person.” The former applies to Salas – who is to remain in detention – while the latter applies to all of the accused being subject to the court’s jurisdiction during trial. 26. “Had the parties intended otherwise, or had this been unclear to Salas and his counsel, they should have insisted on use of a clearer language.” o Sec. 1, Rule 114, ROC defines bail as “the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law.” 27. The purpose of bail is to relieve the accused from imprisonment until his conviction and secure his appearance at trial. It presupposes that the person applying for it is in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of liberty. 28. Having agreed in his criminal case to remain in legal custody, Salas unequivocally waived his right to bail. 6. W/N a waiver of one’s right to bail can be valid – YES. o Art. 6, NCC: “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.” o The Court has ruled: “The doctrine of waiver extends to rights and privileges of any character, and, since the word ‘waiver’ covers every conceivable right, it is the general rule that a person may waive any matter which affects his property, and any alienable right or privilege of which he is the owner or which belongs to him or to which he is legally entitled, whether secured by contract, conferred with statute, or guaranteed by constitution, provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual, are intended for his sole benefit, do not

o

o o

o

o

infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the waiver of the right or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy…” Commonwealth v. Petrillo: Rights guaranteed to persons accused of a crime fall into two classes: (1) those in which the state, as well as the accused, is interested; and (2) those which are personal to the accused. 29. Those rights in which the state is interested cannot be waived, but those personal to the accused may be. The Court has recognized waivers of constitutional rights such as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to be heard. Even the Consti expressly recognizes a waiver of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 30. On the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, Sec. 12(I), Art. 3 states: “these rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.” 31. This clearly suggests that other rights may be waived, provided it does not offend Art. 6 of the NCC. The Court thus rules that “the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose 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.” Since Salas effectively waived his right to bail, the respondent judge acted with GAD in granting bail to the respondent.

RULING: Respondent judge committed GAD. His orders granting bail to the respondent and fixing his bond at P50,000 are SET ASIDE.