EDUARDO SAN MIGUEL v.

JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

Doctrine: It is a misconception that when an accused is charged with the crime of
murder, he is not entitled to bail at all or that the crime of murder is non-bailable.
In other words, accused is still entitled to bail but no longer "as a matter of right."
Instead, it is discretionary and calls for a judicial determination that the evidence of
guilt is not strong in order to grant bail.
Section 4, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that before
conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, all persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a
matter of right.
Complainant: EDUARDO SAN MIGUEL
Respondent: JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA-Presiding Judge RTC Las Piñas City
FACTS: Complainant was arrested for illegal sale, dispensation, distribution and
delivery of .50 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, punishable by prision
correccional.
He jumped bail. Then Judge Alumbres issued a bench warrant and canceled his bail
bond of 60,000 and fixed a new bail bond in the amount of ₱120,000.00.
Complainant was arrested.
The state prosecutor filed a Motion to Cancel Recommended Bail on the ground of
reasonable belief and indications pointing to the probability that accused is seriously
considering flight from prosecution.
Complainant filed an Opposition to the Motion. On the same day,respondent judge
issued an Order granting the Motion. [September 17, 2001--2 days before the hearing
date]
During the date set for hearing of the motion, respondent opted to consider
complainant’s Opposition as a motion for reconsideration and merely ordered the
prosecutor to file a reply thereto.
Respondent issued an Order clarifying his Order
Complainant filed this petition alleging that his right to procedural due process was
gravely violated.
CONTENTION OF SAN MIGUEL
His right to procedural due process was gravely violated when respondent issued the
Order without giving him the opportunity to comment on the same.
The issuance of the Order shows respondent's gross ignorance of the law as the
offense charged is neither a capital offense nor punishable by reclusion perpetua.
His right to bail is not a mere privilege but a constitutionally guaranteed right that
cannot be defeated by any order. Clearly, the intendment of the Order was to deny him
of his constitutional right to bail.
CONTENTION OF JUDGE MACEDA
When he canceled the bail, the cancellation referred to the ₱60,000.00 and not the
₱120,000.00 bail fixed by Judge Alumbres.
The right of complainant to be heard in the motion to withdraw bail was never violated
nor his right to bail impaired.
Complainant could have posted the ₱120,000.00 bail or could have moved for the
lifting of the warrant, but he did not.
The Order of cancellation is dated September 17, 2001 while the Information for
murder was filed against complainant on September 14, 2001 or three days earlier.
Thus, the cancellation was in due course because complainant was already detained for
the non-bailable offense of murder three days before the cancellation was ordered.
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):
The order was issued upon motion of the prosecution to cancel the bail which in part
reads:
“it is most respectfully prayed that the allowance for bail granted to the accused to
secure their provisional liberty provided in the Warrant of Arrest dated May 10, 2001 be
CANCELLED”
It is thus clear that what the prosecution prayed for was the cancellation of the bail of
₱120,000.00 set by Judge Alumbres in his Warrant of Arrest dated May 10, 2001.
Hence, when respondent granted the motion in his order, he in effect denied
complainant his right to bail which can not be denied since complainant charged was
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment and since he has not
yet been convicted, bail in his case is still a matter of right.
The first order gave the clear impression that bail has been cancelled up to the time he
issued the order clarifying his position, or a period of two (2) months, where
complainant stayed in jail because he has lost his right to bail
ISSUE: Whether the increased bail of ₱120,000.00 in the Warrant of Arrest he issued
on May 10, 2001 was also withdrawn by the Order dated September 17, 2001 granting
the prosecution's withdrawal of its recommended bail-YES
HELD: The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: 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 provided 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.
Section 4, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that before
conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, all persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a
matter of right.
Records show that complainant was charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of
R.A. No. 6425 which is punishable by prision correccional. Therefore, complainant is
entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Records show that the prosecutor's Motion to Cancel Recommended Bail was very
precise in its prayer, i.e., that the allowance for bail granted to the accused to secure
his provisional liberty provided in the Warrant of Arrest dated May 10, 2001 be
canceled as there is reasonable ground to believe and all indications point to the
probability that accused is seriously considering flight from the prosecution of the case.
Order of respondent:[issued 2 days before hearing]
Considering the allegations in the Motion to Cancel Recommended Bail filed by the
State Prosecutor that both accused are considering flight, especially accused San
Miguel who is facing a number of grave criminal charges, and the probability of the
accused jumping bail is very high to warrant the cancellation of the recommended
bail, and it appearing that the accused x x x jumped bail on May 10, 2001, the x x x
motion is GRANTED. The bail recommended xxx is considered withdrawn.
However, respondent continued with the hearing. He considered the Opposition to the
Motion as a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order granting the withdrawal by
the prosecution of the recommended bail.
Increased bail of ₱120,000.00 also cancelled.
Contention #1
Respondent clarified that only the bail recommended by the prosecutor in the amount
of ₱60,000.00 was considered withdrawn in the Order of September 17, 2001.
SC does not agree. The bail in the amount of ₱60,000.00 was already forfeited as a
consequence of complainant's jumping bail. The only recommended bail that remains
subject of the Motion of the prosecutor is the increased bail in the amount of
₱120,000.00. Thus, there remains no other conclusion except that respondent canceled
the recommended bail in the increased amount of ₱120,000.00. The Order of
September 17, 2001 effectively deprived complainant of his constitutional right to bail
when it was issued two days before the scheduled hearing on September 19, 2001.
Contention #4
And even granting for the sake of argument that complainant was also charged with
the crime of murder on September 14, 2001, or three days before the Order of
cancellation was issued, respondent failed to consider that what was being prayed for
by the prosecutor was the cancellation of the recommended bail for violation of R.A.
No. 6425 and not that of the crime of murder.
It is a misconception that when an accused is charged with the crime of murder, he is
not entitled to bail at all or that the crime of murder is non-bailable. The grant of bail to
an accused charged with an offense that carries with it the penalty of reclusion
perpetua x x x is discretionary on the part of the trial court. In other words, accused is
still entitled to bail but no longer "as a matter of right." Instead, it is discretionary and
calls for a judicial determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong in order to
grant bail. The prosecution is accorded ample opportunity to present evidence because
by the very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence
that judicial discretion is weighed in determining whether the guilt of the accused is
strong.
Where bail is a matter of right and prior absconding and forfeiture is not excepted from
such right, bail must be allowed irrespective of such circumstance. The existence of a
high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond confers upon the court no
greater discretion than to increase the bond to such an amount as would reasonably
tend to assure the presence of the defendant when it is wanted, such amount to be
subject, of course, to the other provision that excessive bail shall not be required.
Here, prosecutor failed to adduce evidence that there exists a high probability of
accused's jumping bail that would warrant the cancellation of the recommended bail
bond. Following then the above ratiocination, respondent's only recourse is to fix a
higher amount of bail and not cancel the ₱120,000.00 bail fixed by Judge Alumbres.
Complainant was deprived of his right to due process
Sec. 1, Article III of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.
Respondent's issuance of the September 17, 2001 Order two days prior to the
scheduled hearing without considering complainant's Opposition to the Motion,
effectively deprived the latter of his constitutional right to due process. As above
stated, during the September 19, 2001 hearing, respondent considered the Opposition
to the Motion as a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order, albeit, the
prosecutor was merely ordered to file its reply thereto without adducing evidence to
prove the high probability that complainant will jump bail.
In this case, complainant was not able to post bail because there is no other way for a
lay man to interpret the assailed Order except that it effectively canceled the bail bond
fixed by Judge Alumbres, thereby depriving him of his right to temporary liberty as a
result of respondent's erroneous Order.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, RTC, Branch 275, Las
Piñas City is found GUILTY of simple misconduct and FINED in the amount of
₱5,000.00 with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future
will be dealt with more severely.