PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARIANO CORVERA, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. TRANQUILINO CALO, JR., BELLARMINO ALLOCOD AND HON. NICOLAS LAPEÑA, JR., HON. EMETERIO C. CUI AND HON. JUSTO …

People versus Calo

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by the People of the Philippines and by Mariano Corvera, Junior, the son of a man gunned down inside a courtroom, against Tranquilino Calo, Junior, Bellarmino Allocod, and the judges who granted them bail. The son asks the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial judge's order releasing the two accused on bail in a murder case. The case matters for two reasons. First, it settles that an offended party in a criminal case has the personality to bring a special civil action of certiorari even without the imprimatur of the Solicitor General. Second, and more importantly for the bar, it teaches that a bail hearing is not a mere formality: the prosecution must be allowed to present all its evidence within a reasonable time, and cutting that hearing short is a denial of procedural due process that renders the order of bail void.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City. The Executive Judge issued an order directing a re-raffle and, at the same time, fixing bail for the private respondents. The private petitioner went up to the Court of Appeals by certiorari, and that court set aside the order and directed the trial court to issue new warrants of arrest, to determine by the requisite hearing whether the evidence of guilt is strong, and thereafter to resolve whether bail should be granted. On remand, the case was referred to Judge Jose Adao, who conducted marathon hearings and then issued an order granting bail to Calo and Allocod while denying it to the accused at large. The private petitioner again went to the Supreme Court by certiorari, and the Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it. Hence this petition for certiorari with prayer for a restraining order, which the Supreme Court entertained and decided in favor of the petitioners.

Facts

On March 10, 1988, Mariano Corvera, Senior, the father of the private petitioner, was gunned down inside the courtroom of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch Two. The following day, a complaint for murder was filed before the Office of the City Fiscal of Butuan City against the alleged assailant, Pablo Macapas, who remained at large, against the private respondents, and against two unidentified persons. The investigating city fiscal found a prima facie case and prepared the corresponding information for murder.

The private respondents moved for reconsideration. On August 19, 1988, the investigating fiscal himself was gunned down near his residence as he was about to report to his office. An information for murder was eventually filed on November 29, 1988, recommending no bail for the accused. On December 8, 1988, the Executive Judge issued an order directing a re-raffle and at the same time fixing bail for the private respondents at 50,000 pesos each.

After the Court of Appeals set that order aside, marathon hearings were held on February 10, 14, and 15, 1989 to determine whether the evidence of guilt was strong. The prosecution had scheduled nine witnesses whose names were duly submitted to the trial court. After hearing only the fifth witness, Judge Adao insisted on terminating the proceedings. On February 24, 1989, he issued an order granting bail to Calo and Allocod, fixing it at 100,000 pesos and 60,000 pesos respectively, while denying bail to Macapas. The evidence that Calo slipped the fatal gun to the assailant and that Allocod drove the get-away vehicle was not considered, and the private respondents presented no witness to controvert it.

Issues

• Whether or not the private petitioner, as an offended party in a criminal case, has the capacity and personality to bring the petition without the prior imprimatur of the Solicitor General.
• Whether or not the trial judge's order granting bail to the private respondents is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a denial of procedural due process.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, governs the amount of bail and is the provision the trial court invoked in fixing the bail bonds:

Section 6. Bail, how fixed. The amount of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the circumstances of each case.

This provision bears on the case because the trial court relied on it in fixing bail, but the Court holds that the discretion it grants cannot be exercised without first giving the prosecution a full opportunity to show that the evidence of guilt is strong.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the private petitioner. While the general rule is that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic or represent the People in criminal proceedings, the ends of substantial justice would be better served by entertaining the petition. As an offended party in a criminal case, the private petitioner has sufficient personality and a valid grievance against the order granting bail to the alleged murderers of his father. The Court relied on its earlier ruling that offended parties have sufficient interest and personality as persons aggrieved to file the special civil action of prohibition and certiorari, in line with the liberal construction of the Rules of Court.

On the second issue, the Court also ruled in favor of the private petitioner. The mere fact that formal hearings were conducted does not preclude a finding of arbitrariness and denial of due process. The prosecution was scheduled to present nine witnesses, but after hearing only the fifth, the trial judge insisted on terminating the proceedings. The prosecution was not given adequate opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt and to present within a reasonable time all the evidence it desired to present. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus San Diego:

We are of the considered opinion that whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail.

The Court added that justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also, and that the concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. The order granting bail was therefore null and void for having been issued in violation of procedural due process.

Doctrine

Two rules must be retained. First, an offended party in a criminal case has sufficient interest and personality as a person aggrieved to file a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, even without the prior imprimatur of the Solicitor General, in line with the liberal construction of the Rules of Court. Second, in a bail hearing for a person in custody for a capital offense, whether the motion is resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence it may desire to introduce before the court resolves the motion for bail. If the prosecution is denied that opportunity, the order granting bail is void for violating procedural due process. The discretion to fix bail under Section 6 of Rule 114 cannot be exercised until that opportunity has been fully accorded.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside, and the temporary restraining order issued on July 6, 1989 was made permanent.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the prosecution must be allowed to present all its evidence within a reasonable time before the court resolves a motion for bail, and cutting that hearing short renders the order of bail void. Examiners like to use this case on the personality of the offended party to file certiorari without the Solicitor General, and on procedural due process in bail hearings for capital offenses.