1.) BASCO VS.

RAPATALO
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 March 5, 1997

ROMERO, J.:
PREPARED BY: MA. STEFANIE REI PICAR

RIGHT TO BAIL

FACTS:

Judge Leo Rapatalo - RTC Agoo, La Union (respondent) was charged with with gross
ignorance or willful disregard of established rule of law for granting bail to an accused in
a murder case without receiving evidence and conducting a hearing.

It was alleged by the complainant, father’s victim in the crime of murder against Roger
Morente, that Morente filed a petition for bail. The hearing was set and reset for several
time but did not materialize. He later learned that the accused was out on bail despite
the fact that the petition had not been heard at all. Upon investigation, complainant
discovered that bail had been granted and a release order was issued. The bail petition
was signed by the assistant prosecutor and by the respondent Judge.

The respondent Judge contended that hat he granted the petition based on the
prosecutor’s option not to oppose the petition as well as the latter’s recommendation
setting the bail bond in the amount of P80,000.00. He also stated in his comment that
he has the discretion on whether to approve it or not, and that he had the right to
presume that the prosecutor knew what he was doing since he was more familiar with
the case.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the application for bail must be heard

RULING:

YES. The court explained the nature of “Bail” which is the security required by the court
and given by the accused to ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at
the scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought against him or her. In
other words, if the denial of bail is authorized in capital offenses, it is only in theory that
the proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than
face the verdict of the court. Hence the exception to the fundamental right to be bailed
should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of probability of evasion of the prosecution.
In practice, bail has also been used to prevent the release of an accused who might
otherwise be dangerous to society or whom the judges might not want to release. With
the said practical function of bail, it is understood that there is an exception to the right
to bail when the crime charged is punishable with death, life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua.

When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that
the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. However, the determination of
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion,
remains with the judge.

It was also reiterated by the judge that it is mandatory for a judge to conduct a hearing
as decided in many other cases. Consequently, in the application for bail of a person
charged with a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court,
must actually be conducted to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong.

Since the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is
strong is a matter of judicial discretion, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even
in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application
for bail to the discretion of the court.