EN
BANC
PEPITO
MAGNO,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. L-19361
February
26, 1965
-versus-
HON.
MACAPANTON
ABBAS
AND THE
PROVINCIAL
FISCAL OF DAVAO,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
DIZON,
J :
In Criminal Case No. 285-A
filed with the Municipal Court of the City of Davao against Francisco
Nuñez
and others for robbery with rape, petitioner Pepito Magno was arrested
by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by said Court. After proper
proceedings,
said Court forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance of Davao
where
it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 7155. Prior to the filing of the
Information
in the latter Court, petitioner filed a Motion for Bail, but the same
was
denied by the respondent judge on the ground that it was filed
prematurely.
A second Motion for
Bail was filed subsequently by petitioner, and after a hearing held
thereon,
the respondent judge issued a verbal order on November 24, 1961
granting
the motion and fixing the bail bond in the sum of P40,000.00. In the
afternoon
of the same date, however, the fiscal moved for a reconsideration of
the
Order claiming that he had just received sufficient evidence to prove
the
guilt of petitioner. The Court stayed the effectivity of the Order
granting
bail and after a hearing on the motion for reconsideration, the Order
was
finally set aside and another was issued denying the Motion for Bail.
Petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration of this last Order having been denied, he
filed
the present special civil action of certiorari, claiming that, in
denying
his Motion for Bail, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of
discretion.
In the Order of the
respondent judge complained of, His Honor states the following:
"The hearing of an
application for bail is summary in nature. On such hearing, the Court
'does
not seek to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the
weight that would be allowed to the evidence for or against the
accused,
nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further
evidence
may be therein offered and admitted. (8 C.J.S., 93, 94).' [Padilla,
Criminal
Procedure 1955 ed. p. 270 citing Ocampo vs. Bernabe et al., 77 Phil.
55].
It has also been held that 'to sustain a refusal of bail in a capital
case
it is enough that evidence induces the belief that the accused have
committed
the offense.' [Ex parte Page, 255, p. 887, 82, Cal. App. 576].
According
to the law as interpreted by the courts like the case cited above it
appears
that in an application for bail the Court does not go into the merits
of
the case. Therefore, inconsistency or contradiction in the testimony of
a witness for the prosecution is not sufficient in itself to entitle
the
accused to bail. It is enough, for the denial of bail that the proof of
guilt is evident or the presumption great. It is sufficient that the
evidence
presented by the prosecution induces the belief that the accused had
committed
the offense.
"Guided by the above
ruling, the Court is of the opinion that the accused shall be denied
bail.
He is accused of a capital offense. The evidence presented during the
hearing
of the petition for bail, without passing upon the merits of the
evidence,
shows that the accused Pepito Magno has participated in the commission
of the offense of which he is charged with other persons. The least
that
can be said about the evidence on record, without passing on the
merits,
is that the proof of guilt of the accused is presumptively strong."
It
is petitioner's contention
that while under the Constitution and the Rules of Court, a person
charged
with a capital offense may be denied bail before conviction only if the
evidence of guilt against him is strong, the respondent judge denied
him
bail only on the strength of a strong presumption of guilt, thereby
committing
a grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner's contention
is without merit.
A reading of the Order
complained of clearly shows that in the opinion of the respondent
judge,
the evidence presented during the summary hearing on the Motion for
Bail
showed "that the accused Pepito Magno has participated in the
commission
of the offense of which he is charged with other person". Casting aside
unnecessary pronouncements made in the Order complained of, We believe
that what the respondent judge really found and held was that the
evidence
of guilt presented against petitioner was strong and justified denial
of
his motion for bail. At this stage of the proceeding, there is nothing
before Us sufficient to justify the conclusion that His Honor erred or
abused his discretion in so holding.
PREMISES CONSIDERED,
the petition under consideration is dismissed and the writ prayed for
denied,
with costs.
Bengzon, C.J.,
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala,
Makalintal,
Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. |