JOSELITO V. NARCISO V. FLOR MARIE STA.

ROMANA-CRUZ,

G.R. No. 134504, March 17, 2000

PANGANIBAN, J.:

When the penalty prescribed by law is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing must
be conducted by the trial judge before bail can be granted to the accused. Absent such hearing, the
order granting bail is void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. In parricide, the
accused cannot be considered an offended party just because he was married to the deceased. In the
interest of justice and in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the sister of the victim may be
deemed to be an "offended party"; hence, she has the legal personality to challenge the void order of
the trial court.

Facts:

After conducting a preliminary investigation on the death of Corazon Sta. Romana-Narciso, wife of
Joselito Narciso, Asst. City Prosecutor Myrna Dimaranan Vidal of Quezon City recommended and
thereafter filed, the information for parricide against Joselito Narciso on November 13, 1991, with the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

Joselito Narciso thereafter asked for a review of the prosecutors resolution [before] the Department of
Justice (DOJ) which was however denied. Joselito Narciso moved for reconsideration, which was still
denied by the DOJ.

Failing before DOJ, the accused filed an "Omnibus Motion for Reinvestigation and to Lift the Warrant of
Arrest". The Motion was granted and the case was set for reinvestigation by another prosecutor.

The Prosecutor to whom the case was assigned for reinvestigation, found no reason to disturb the
findings of the previous prosecutor and recommended the remand of the case to the court for
arraignment and trial.

The accused filed an Urgent Ex-Parte (Ex Abundanti Cautela) to Allow Accused Joselito Narciso to Post
Bail. The Public Prosecutor registered no objection and said motion was granted on the same day,
allowing accused to post bail at P150,000.00

It was opposed by respondents herein, then they moved for the postponement of the

hearings because no witness was available. Not obtaining any resolution on her

Motion To Lift Order Allowing Accused to Post Bail‘ private complainant (respondent

herein) filed this petition before the CA. CA granted the petition.
Hence this case, Petitioner averred that CA erred when it reversed and set aside the order of the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which granted the petitioner his constitutional right

to bail, considering the absence of strong evidence or proof of his guilt, and more

especially when the public prosecutors, who have direct control of the proceedings and

after assessment of the evidence, have themselves recommended the grant of bail.

Issue:

Whether the bail granted was valid and CA should not have reversed RTC.

Whether the Respondent has a legal standing to file the petition.

Ruling:

The Petition is devoid of merit.

First Issue: Validity of the Grant of Bail

Section 13, Article III of the 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."

Furthermore, Section 7, Article 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended, also provides: "No person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal
prosecution."

Although petitioner was charged with parricide which is punishable with reclusion perpetua, he argued
before the CA that he was entitled to bail because the evidence of his guilt was not strong. He
contended that the prosecutor's conformity to his Motion for Bail was tantamount to a finding that the
prosecution evidence against him was not strong.

The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that there was no basis for such finding, since no hearing had been
conducted on the application for bail -- summary or otherwise. The appellate court found that only ten
minutes had elapsed between the filing of the Motion by the accused and the Order granting bail, a
lapse of time that could not be deemed sufficient for the trial court to receive and evaluate any
evidence.

In Basco v. Rapatalo summarized several case that emphasized the mandatory character of a hearing in
a petition for bail in a capital case.

Clearly, the grant of bail by Executive Judge Santiago was laced with grave abuse of discretion and the
Court of Appeals was correct in reversing him.

Second Issue: Respondent's Standing to File the Petition

Petitioner attacks respondents legal standing to file the Petition for Certiorari before the appellate court,
maintaining that only the public prosecutor or the solicitor general may challenge the assailed Order.

"In Paredes vs. Gopengco, 29 SCRA 688 (1969), this Court ruled that the offended parties in criminal
cases have sufficient interest and personality as "person(s) aggrieved" to file the special civil action of
prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65.

Clearly, the assailed Order of Judge Santiago was issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction. A void order is no order at all. It cannot confer any right or be the source of any relief.
This Court is not merely a court of law; it is likewise a court of justice.

To rule otherwise would leave the private respondent without any recourse to rectify the public

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED.