PEPITO MAGNO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS AND THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF DAVAO, RESPONDENTS.

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 a
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.