FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-8455. February 27, 1956.

G!"D#N$IO %!NIG&!S, #T !L., Petitioners-Appellees, '(. )"DG#
$!LI*TO +. L"N!, #T$., #T !L., Respondents. )"DG# $!LI*TO +.
L"N!, Respondent-Appellant.

D # $ I S I O N
&!"TIST! !NG#LO, J.:
On July 13, 1954, Gaudencio Manigbas and eleven others were charged with
murder before the Justice of the eace !ourt of "osario, #atangas by !a$tain
%$igenio &avarro, commanding o'cer of a constabulary detachment
stationed in (langilang, #atangas, #atangas) *he com$laint was later
amended by including one Miguel (lmario)
*hree days after the +ling of the original com$laint, counsel for the accused
moved that they be granted bail for their $rovisional liberty and, on July 19,
1954, the court issued an order wherein, after reconsidering its $revious
order denying bail to all, allowed to some the right to bail and denied to
others) #oth defense and $rosecution +led a motion for reconsideration, the
former as,ing that all the accused be granted bail while the latter $leading
that all of them be denied because the -ustice of the $eace court has no
-urisdiction to grant bail in cases involving ca$ital o.enses) On July /1, 1954,
the court entered an order setting aside its order of July 19, 1954 and
restoring its original order denying bail to all the accused for the reason that
0in a long series of decisions $romulgated by our 1u$reme !ourt in
connection with the granting of bail to a $erson charged with a ca$ital
o.ense which were carefully e2amined by this court, there is not a single
case wherein the Justice of the eace !ourt entertained a $etition for bail for
a $erson charged with a ca$ital o.ense and thereafter hear the evidence to
determine whether the same is strong or not so as to warrant the giving of
bail)3
4$on recei$t of a co$y of the aforesaid order, counsel for the defense +led
with the !ourt of 5irst 6nstance of #atangas, sitting in 7i$a !ity, a $etition for
mandamus see,ing in e.ect to com$el the -ustice of the $eace court of
"osario to receive evidence to determine if the same warrants the granting
of bail to the accused) (fter the $rovincial commander and the -ustice of the
$eace $ut in their answers, the court on (ugust /4, 1954 granted the
$etition holding that Respondent -ustice of the $eace court has authority to
grant bail even if the charge involves a ca$ital o.ense and ordering said
court to act on the a$$lication for bail) 8ence this a$$eal)

#efore $roceeding to discuss the merits of the $resents controversy, there is
need to dwell on a $oint of $rocedure which came u$ during the deliberation
of this case) *his has reference to the fact that, according to the record, the
accused who have inter$osed this $etition for mandamus are still at large for
so far no order has been issued for their arrest) *he record discloses that
immediately u$on the +ling of the charge against them they a$$lied for bail
and their motion was immediately acted u$on by the -ustice of the $eace)
(nd the denial of the bail eventually led to the +ling of the $resent $etition
for mandamus)
9e hold that this $etition is $remature for its $ur$ose is to com$el the
$erformance of a duty which does not e2ist there being no correlative right
the use or en-oyment of it has been denied which may be the sub-ect of
mandamus :section ;<, "ule 3=> chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand this is so because the right to bail
only accrues when a $erson is arrested or de$rived of his liberty) *he
$ur$ose of bail is to secure one?s release and it would be incongruous to
grant bail to one who is free) *hus, 0bail is the security re@uired and given
for the release of a $erson who is in the custody of the law3 :"ule 11A,
section 1=, and evidently the accused do not come within its $urview) 9e
could therefore dismiss this $etition on this score alone were it not for the
im$ortance of the issue now before us which re@uires $ro$er elucidation for
the guidance of all -ustices of the $eace who may be found in similar
$redicament)
*he issue to be determined is whether a -ustice of the $eace can, in a case
involving a ca$ital o.ense, act on an a$$lication for bail and receive
evidence to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong or otherwise grant
bail if the evidence so warrants)
4nder our !onstitution, all accused $ersons before conviction are entitled to
bail e2ce$t those charged with ca$ital o.enses when evidence of guilt is
strong :(rticle 666, section 1, $aragra$h 1;=) 4nder our rules, in nonBca$ital
o.enses, after -udgment by a -ustice of the $eace and before conviction by
the court of +rst instance, an accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right
:"ule 11A, section 3=> chan roblesvirtualawlibrary but, 0after conviction by the !ourt of 5irst 6nstance,
Defendant may, u$on a$$lication, be bailed at the discretion of the court)3
:"ule 11A, section 4)= (nd im$lementing the $rovision of our !onstitution,
the rule also $rovides that 0&o $erson in custody for the commission of a
ca$ital o.ense shall be admitted to bail if the evidence of his guilt is strong3
:"ule 11A, section ;=) *he burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is
strong is on the $rosecution :"ule 11A, section <=)
9hile as a general rule it may be stated that an a$$lication for bail may be
acted u$on by the court which has cogniCance of the case regardless of
whether it involves a ca$ital o.ense or not, :eralta vs) "amos, <1 hil), /<1=
and as a general $ro$osition we may concede that -ustices of the $eace
before whom a case is initiated by the +ling of the corres$onding com$laint
or information have also authority to entertain $etitions for bail in cases
involving nonB ca$ital o.enses as to which the accused are entitled to bail as
a matter of right, however, doubt is entertained as to whether said -ustices
of the $eace can li,ewise entertain bail while the cases are under their
control if they involve ca$ital o.enses li,e the one under consideration) *his
doubt has arisen because the law and the rules on the matter are not
e2$licit enough and our -uris$rudence has not so far laid down a clearBcut
ruling clarifying this $oint in this -urisdiction)
6n the 4nited 1tates 0it may be stated as a general rule that all -udicial
o'cers having the $ower to hear and determine cases have the $ower to
ta,e bail)3 6t is regarded as 0a necessary incident to the right to hear and
determine the cause3 :; (m Jur), $) ;<=) (nd with $articular reference to
-ustices of the $eace, the general rule is that 0where, under the statutes,
-ustices of the $eace have $ower as e2amining magistrates, with $ower of
commitment, they may in their discretion admit to bail3> chan roblesvirtualawlibrary e2ce$t, where
their $ower to 0ta,e bail3 is limited by the !onstitution, or by statute, in
which case 0they must act within the e2$ress or im$lied limitations thereby
laid down3 :; C.J., 9<3B9<4=) #ut the $revailing rule is that 0inferior o'cers
vested only with the $ower to commit cannot, without e2$ress legislative
enactment, ta,e bail in ca$ital o.enses, for the determination of the
su'ciency of the evidence in such cases, in order to entitle the accused to
bail, is a matter of the greatest im$ortance both to the accused and to the
state and is the a$$ro$riate $rovince of the court entrusted with the trial of
such cases3 :; (m) Jur) $) ;<=)
!onsidering the general rule that -ustices of the $eace have the $ower as
e2amining magistrates to commit and in their discretion admit to bail an
accused $erson unless such $ower is limited by the !onstitution or by
statute, can we say that in this -urisdiction our -ustices of the $eace have
also the $ower to admit to bail a $erson accused of a ca$ital o.enseD
Our answer must of necessity be in the a'rmative not only because there is
no such limitation in our !onstitution but because the Judiciary
"eorganiCation (ct of 194E seems to e2$ressly confer this $ower u$on them)
9e refer to sections E< and 91 of said (ct relative to the $ower of -ustices of
the $eace to conduct $reliminary investigations and the incidental $owers
they may e2ercise in relation thereto) *he +rst section $rovides that the
-ustices of the $eace may conduct $reliminary investigations 0for any
o.ense alleged to have been committed within their res$ective
munici$alities cralaw without regard to the limits of $unishment, and may release,
or commit and bind over any $erson charged with such o.ense to secure his
a$$earance before the $ro$er court)3 (nd section 91 $rovides that the same
-ustices of the $eace may 0re@uire of any $erson arrested a bond for good
behavior or to ,ee$ the $eace, or for the further a$$earance of such $erson
before a court of com$etent -urisdiction)3 *he only limitation to this $ower is
that the bond must be a$$roved by that court) *hese $rovisions are broad
enough to confer u$on -ustices of the $eace the authority to grant bail to
$ersons accused even of ca$ital o.enses for such is the only meaning that
we can give to the $hrase 0bind over any $erson charged with such o.ense
to secure his a$$earance before the $ro$er court)3 *his is the meaning of
bail as de+ned in section 1 of "ule 11A)
1ome a$$rehension has been e2$ressed by some members of the !ourt
over the fact that if such $ower is given to -ustices of the $eace in ca$ital
cases the $ower may be abused or im$ro$erly e2ercised considering the fact
that some of them are not lawyers or are $oliticians li,e the mayors who
may act under the law when the incumbent -ustices are tem$orarily absent
:section 3, "ule 1AE=) 9hile the $ossibility of abuse cannot be denied such
cannot argue against the e2istence of the $ower and if there is need for a
remedy such devolves u$on !ongress) #ut before such curative measure is
ado$ted, our duty is to a$$ly the law as we see it regardless of its
im$lications) (nd in the event that an abuse is committed, the situation is
not without a remedy) *he government can immediately ta,e ste$s to obtain
a$$ro$riate relief and, we are sure, the $ro$er court will not deny $rom$t
action when necessary to $romote the interests of -ustice) 9e are therefore
of the o$inion that Respondent -ustice of the $eace can act on the
a$$lication for bail ta,ing into account the evidence that may be $resented
by the $rosecution) 6n this res$ect the order a$$ealed from is correct)
!onsidering that the $etition for mandamus is $remature, the same should
be dismissed with costs against Petitioners)
+ara(, C.J., +a,-..a, Reye(, !., )u/o, $o01e21-o0, Reye(, ). &. L. a0,
#0,e01-a, JJ., 1o01ur.

Se2ara3e O2-0-o0(
MONTEMAYOR, J., concurring and dissenting:chanroblesirtualla!librar"
6n so far as the ma-ority o$inion dismisses the $etition for mandamus for
being $remature, 6 concur in it) #ut where it holds and lays down the
doctrine that a Justice of the eace !ourt may entertain and act u$on
$etitions for bail in ca$ital o.ense cases, 6 dissent) *he reason is that a
Justice of the eace !ourt has a limited criminal -urisdiction and is allowed to
try and decide only minor or $etty o.enses> chan roblesvirtualawlibrary it is not a court of record> chan
roblesvirtualawlibraryand until the $resent, in some towns or districts the -udicial o'cer
$residing over it, is not even a member of the bar, and although he may
have studied law, he has limited legal training, e2$erience and ,nowledge of
the law, es$ecially that of evidence, and is not @uali+ed and in a $osition to
receive, $ass u$on and weigh evidence submitted to determine whether the
evidence for the $rosecution is strong, as $rovided by law) *he very ma-ority
o$inion in $art saysFchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
0#ut the $revailing rule is that Ginferior o'cers vested only with the $ower to
commit cannot, without e2$ress legislative enactment, ta,e bail in ca$ital
o.enses, for the determination of the su'ciency of the evidence in such
cases, in order to entitle the accused to bail, is a matter of the greatest
im$ortance both to the accused and to the state and is the a$$ro$riate
$rovince of the court entrusted with the trial of such cases? :; (m) Jur), ;<=)3
:6talics su$$lied)=
*hat is $artly correct) *he com$lete rule seems to be that stated in %2B$arte
Hittrel, /A (r,) 4AA where the !ourt saidFchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
0 cralaw *o hear the showing and determine u$on the su'ciency in cases of so
much magnitude is a matter of the greatest im$ortance, both to the accused
and to the state, and would seem to be the a$$ro$riate $rovince of the court
or -udge intrusted, by the !onstitution, with the trial of such causes> chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand
in the absence of any clear and e2$licit act attem$ting to confer u$on
inferior o'cers authority to hear and determine a matter of so much
conse@uence in the $rogress of ca$ital cases, we are dis$osed to doubt that
such was the intention of the legislature)3 :39 7)")() &1 <5E)= :6talics
su$$lied)=
&ow, is there any law, clear and e2$licit conferring u$on a -ustice of the
eace !ourt the -urisdiction and authority to hear and determine
a$$lications for bail in cases involving ca$ital o.enseD *he ma-ority o$inion
claims that there is such a law I sections E< and 91 of the Judiciary (ct of
194E> chan roblesvirtualawlibrary and saysFchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
0 cralaw *he +rst section $rovides that the -ustices of the $eace may conduct
$reliminary investigations Gfor any o.ense alleged to have been committed
within their res$ective munici$alities cralaw without regard to the limits of
$unishments, and may release, or commit and bind over any $erson
charged with such o.ense to secure his a$$earance before the $ro$er
court)? (nd section 91 $rovides that the same -ustices of the $eace may
Gre@uire of any $erson arrested a bond for good behavior or to ,ee$ the
$eace, or for the further a$$earance of such $erson before a court of
com$etent -urisdiction)? *he only limitation to this $ower is that the bond
must be a$$roved by that court) *hese $rovisions are broad enough to
confer u$on -ustices of the $eace the authority to grant bail to $ersons
accused even of ca$ital o.enses for such is the only meaning that we can
give to the $hrase Gbind over any $erson charged with such o.ense to
secure his a$$earance before the $ro$er court)3 :6talics su$$lied)=
6t will be noticed that the ma-ority?s whole claim or argument by reason of
the above $rovisions rests mainly, if not entirely on the $hrase 0bind over3
which according to Jol) 6, #ouvier?s 7aw Kictionary, $) 3;5, is 0the act by
which a magistrate or court hold to bail a $arty accused of a crime or
misdemeanor3) #ut the $hrase 0bind over3 does not stand alone in section
E< of the Judiciary (ct of 194E) 6t is connected with the word 0commit>3, the
whole $hrase being 0commit and bind over3) (ccording to Jol) 6, #ouvier?s
7aw Kictionary, $) 55A, 0commitment3 is de+ned as 0the warrant or order by
which a court or magistrate directs a ministerial o'cer to ta,e a $erson to
$rison,3 or 0the act of sending a $erson to $rison by means of such a
warrant or order)3 6n other words, the law says that the Justice of the eace
may admit a $arty accused of a crime or misdemeanor to bail and send that
same $arty to -ail) 6f the coordinating word 0or3 were used between the word
0commit3 and the $hrase 0bind over3, then there would be o.ered an
alternative or choice of either, that is to say, a magistrate may commit one
to -ail or admit him to bail) #ut the law used the con-unction 0and3 which
would seem to mean that the magistrate must do both and not only one of
them) 9hat the 7egislature meant by the $hrase 0commit and bind over3 is
not only not clear but doubtful and we cannot say that the law is clear and
e2$licit in authoriCing a Justice of the eace to grant bail in ca$ital o.enses)
*he ma-ority o$inion itself admits 0that the law and the rules are not e2$licit
enough3) %ven assuming that the $hrase could be inter$reted to mean that
the Justice of the eace may $ut in -ail or admit to bail, it may well be that
such authority e2tends only to nonBca$ital o.enses where the accused is
entitled to bail as a matter of right, and not to cases where admission to bail
is a matter of discretion :"ule 11A section E=) *he ma-ority claims that the
legal $rovisions are broad enough) 6ndeed they are broad, too broad and
vague, and to me far from clear and e2$licit) &owhere in sections E< and 91
of the Judiciary (ct can we +nd a single word, $hrase or clause mentioning
or referring even remotely to ca$ital o.enses) 1o, under the rule 6 have cited
and re$roduced, in the absence of a 0clear and e2$licit (ct attem$ting to
confer u$on inferior o'cers authority to hear and determine a matter of so
much conse@uence in the $rogress of ca$ital cases3 :$etition for bail= the
conclusion must be that said inferior o'cers have not such authority)
7et us start with the fact that a Justice of the eace !ourt is not a court of
record) *here is no stenogra$her to ta,e down the evidence submitted
before it) 1o, if said court acting u$on a $etition for bail in a ca$ital o.ense
case grants bail on the ground that the evidence for the $rosecution is not
strong or, on the other hand, denies bail on the ground that said evidence
for the $rosecution is strong, it would be di'cult, if not im$ossible, to a$$eal
from said order or to correct it thru certiorari $roceedings on the ground of
abuse of discretion, for the sim$le reason that the a$$ellate court where the
a$$eal is ta,en nor where the e2traordinary legal remedy is sought, cannot
review the evidence received by the Justice of the eace !ourt to determine
whether or not it abused its discretion, because there is no record of such
evidence)
6t is true that a Justice of the eace may conduct $reliminary investigation of
any criminal case regardless of the seriousness thereof and the $enalty
attached to it) 5or that matter even the town mayor may also be called u$on
to conduct said $reliminary investigation) 1ection 3, "ule 1AE of the "ules of
!ourt $rovidesFchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
01%!) 3) reliminary investigation by the munici$al mayor) I 6n case of
tem$orary absence of both the -ustice of the $eace and the au2iliary -ustice
from the munici$ality, town, or $lace wherein they e2ercise their -urisdiction,
the munici$al mayor shall ma,e the $reliminary investigation in criminal
cases when such investigation cannot be delayed without $re-udice to the
interest of -ustice) 8e shall ma,e a re$ort of any $reliminary investigation so
made to the -ustice of the $eace or to the au2iliary -ustice immediately u$on
the return of one or the other) 8e shall have authority in such cases to order
the arrest of the Defendant and to grant him bail in the manner and cases
$rovided for in "ule 11A)3
4nder the above $rovision, a mayor may conduct a $reliminary investigation
and may grant bail under "ule 11A) ut we should bear in mind that in a
$reliminary investigation said court determines only the e2istence or
absence of $robable cause and then decides whether to dismiss the case or
to elevate the same to the !ourt of 5irst 6nstance) 8owever, to determine
whether a $erson accused of a ca$ital o.ense is entitled to bail, the court
determines not only $robable cause but also whether the evidence for the
$rosecution is strong) *o ma,e this determination involves a careful
a$$raisal and weighing of the evidence not only of the $rosecution but also
that of the defense, for the reason that the evidence of the $rosecution
alone may be strong but when considered and weighed against that of the
defense, it may be wea,) 6n this a$$raisal and weighing of the evidence the
court must $ass u$on and decide many legal $oints re@uiring legal training,
e2$erience, and ,nowledge if not mastery of the law of evidence) 6t must
determine the admissibility of written statements and confessions claimed
by the defense to have been e2torted thru force, intimidation, torture or
$romise of reward) 6t must determine whether statements, verbal or written,
made by the murder victim may be considered as a dying declaration,
whether or not s$ontaneous statements or e2clamations uttered by him are
$art of the res gestae, to determine their com$etence and admissibility) 6t
must be able to tell if the crime committed is murder or sim$le homicide for
if the latter, then it is not a ca$ital o.ense and so the accused is entitled to
bail> chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut the determination of this im$ortant $oint involves a +nding of the
e2istence or absence of @ualifying or merely aggravating :generic=
circumstances and re@uires ,nowledge of the distinction between them) 6t
must $ass u$on the $ro$riety relevancy and materiality of @uestions as,ed
and the ob-ections thereto) 6 am not sure that a Justice of the eace with
some e2ce$tions of course, is in a $osition to do all this) (nd 6 greatly doubt
that the 7egislature by the general, if not vague, terms used in section E< of
the Judiciary (ct intended to entrust all this tas, to a Justice of the eace
who may not even be a lawyer or to the town mayor who may be a com$lete
stranger to a law boo,)
9e should also remember that in a $osition for bail in ca$ital o.enses the
rovincial 5iscal must be noti+ed and most li,ely he will a$$ear at the
hearing and +ght the a$$lication every inch of the way, es$ecially when in
his o$inion the evidence in his hands is strong and the accused is a
dangerous criminal who would li,ely -um$ his bail) &ow, in such a $rolonged
and bitter legal +ght between the 5iscal and usually a battery of defense
lawyers, considerable evidence, $arole and documentary, is submitted) One
side would be as,ing @uestions leading, im$ertinent or otherwise and the
other vigorously ob-ecting to them and viceBversa, and arguing all the way,
and the court must decide all said @uestions and $oints on the s$ot) *he
hearing may last several days) 9hen the trial is +nally ended and the -ustice
of the eace retires to his room to study the evidence, he has to rely entirely
u$on his memory unless he has ta,en down notes) 8e has no record of the
evidence such as the transcri$t of stenogra$hic notes of the testimony of
witnesses to refresh his memory, to contrast the evidence for the
$rosecution with that of the defense and weigh both in the Judicial balance,
because as we have already said, this court is not a court of record and
there is no stenogra$her to ta,e down the evidence) !onsidering all this, can
we in conscience say that the Justice of the eace is in a $osition to
entertain and decide a $etition for bail in a case involving a ca$ital o.enseD
*here is another im$ortant @uestion that bears consideration) 7et us
su$$ose that the com$laint for a ca$ital o.ense is +led in a remote
munici$ality far from the ca$ital) ( $etition for bail is +led) *he law says that
the rovincial 5iscal must be noti+ed) 5or him to leave his o'ce and a trial
being conducted by him in the !ourt of 5irst 6nstance, may not be easy) 8e
may have to as, for $ost$onement of the hearing on the $etition for bail)
9hen he +nally goes to the remote town for the hearing, he arrives there
with no ,nowledge whatsoever of the case, much less, of the evidence of
the $rosecution) 8e would have to call and confer with the Government
witnesses, ta,e down their testimonies and otherwise $re$are for the
hearing) *his may re@uire several days and in the meantime the accused is
in con+nement) *he hearing sometimes is a fullBdress rehearsal of the
regular trial and may ta,e several days, all because the defense attorneys
,nowing that the 5iscal or his assistant had come to attend the hearing,
have lined u$ many defense witnesses and $re$ared them) (fter the
hearing, the Justice of the eace or the Mayor acting in his $lace may also
ta,e time to study the evidence submitted and decide the $etition for bail)
(ll this la$se of time is $re-udicial to the accused because in the meantime
he is languishing in -ail) 5inally, the !ourt +nds that the evidence for the
$rosecution is not strong and grants bail) *he case is then set for $reliminary
investigation) *his may have to be done because although the Justice of the
eace found after the hearing on the $etition for bail that the evidence for
the $rosecution was not strong, nevertheless, to send the case u$ to the
!ourt of 5irst 6nstance, re@uires only $robable cause if $roven at the
$reliminary investigation) (fter the $reliminary investigation and after the
oral arguments by both $arties, the Justice of the eace decides that there is
no $robable cause and he dismisses the com$laint) 6t is evident that all the
$roceedings at the hearing on the $etition for bail was a waste of time and
e.ort not only on the $art of the court but also of the $rosecution and the
defense and their witnesses, all because the hearing on the $etition for bail
was held before the $reliminary investigation) 6t would have been better and
more $ro$er and advisable to have awaited the result of the $reliminary
investigation before +ling a $etition for bail, and +le said $etition in the
!ourt of 5irst 6nstance if the case is +nally elevated to it because if after the
$reliminary investigation the case is dismissed and the accused released,
then there would be no reason or occasion for the $etition for bail) 6n the
case or e2am$le 6 have given, $reliminary investigation would not have
lasted more than one or two hours because the !ourt found not even
$robable cause, and so the accused would have been released immediately>
chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut because he +led a $etition for bail, he s$ent many days in -ail because
the 5iscal had to be noti+ed, the hearing had to be $ost$oned, e2tensive
$re$aration were made by both sides, a fullBdress hearing was had where
voluminous evidence was submitted, all to be studied and weighed by the
Justice of the eace)
&ot infre@uently, the accused in a ca$ital o.ense are $lain bandits charged
with multi$le murder, homicide, robbery, even ra$e) #ecause of the di'culty
of ca$turing them, a reward of say /A,AAA is set u$on the head of the
leader) (fter a cam$aign of months by the (rmy and the !onstabulary with
the aid of informers interested in the reward but after the loss of lives of
soldiers and guides, and e2$ense to the Government of hundreds of
thousands of $esos, including the $ayment of rewards, the bandits are
+nally ca$tured) *he corres$onding com$laint is +led against them in the
Justice of the eace !ourt for multi$le murder, homicide, ,idna$$ing,
robbery, ra$e, etc) *hey +le a $etition for bail) 6f the Justice of the eace
because of the reasons already given, namely, his limited legal $re$aration,
e2$erience and training, or for com$lete lac, of the same in case the Mayor
acts in the absence of the Justice of the eace and his au2iliary, ma,es a
mista,e and grants the $etition for bail, then all these Defendants ca$tured
after so much sacri+ce and e2$enses are set free and most li,ely would go
bac, to the mountains and forests to renew their acts of $illage and
banditry)
On this $articular $oint the ma-ority fran,ly admits the $ossibility of abuse of
such authority to grant bail in ca$ital o.ense cases when it saysFchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
01ome a$$rehension has been e2$ressed by some members of the !ourt
over the fact that 6f such $ower is given to -ustices of the $eace in ca$ital
cases the $ower may be abused or im$ro$erly e2ercised considering the fact
that some of them are not lawyers or are $oliticians li,e the mayors who
may act under the law when the incumbent -ustices are tem$orarily absent
:section 3, "ule 1AE=) 9hile the $ossibility of abuse cannot be denied such
cannot argue against the e2istence of the $ower and if there is need for a
remedy such devolves u$on !ongress) #ut before such curative measures is
ado$ted, our duty is to a$$ly the law as we see it regardless of its
im$lication)3
#ut in case of miscarriage of -ustice due to abuse, the ma-ority with
admirable ingenuousness, and with ho$e and trust manifestly mis$laced
o.ers a remedy, sayingFchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
0(nd in the event that an abuse is committed, the situation is not without a
remedy) *he government can immediately ta,e ste$s to obtain a$$ro$riate
relief and we are sure, the $ro$er court will not deny $rom$t action when
necessary to $romote the interests of -ustice)3
*rue, the 5iscal may $etition the !ourt of 5irst 6nstance for the cancellation
I even for the con+scation of the bail bond) #ut that would be loc,ing the
door of the stable after the horse is gone) 9hat shall it $ro+t the
Government to con+scate said bonds, even get their amounts, assuming
that the sureties are all solvent, if after all, the Government will have to
renew, even reB double its cam$aign to reca$ture the bandits, o.er new
rewards and lose more soldiers and innocent lives) 9hy not entrust that
delicate and im$ortant tas, of determining in ca$ital o.ense cases, whether
or not the evidence for the $rosecution is strong, for $ur$oses of granting or
denying bail, which according to $revailing rule cited by the ma-ority o$inion
itself is 0a matter of the greatest im$ortance both to the accused and to the
state3, to the !ourt of 5irst 6nstance, where it belongs and where, in the
absence of clear and e2$licit legal $rovisions to the contrary, the 7egislature
in my o$inion intended it to beD
#abrador, J., concurs.
Copyright 1998 - 2014 ChanRobles Publishing Company 4 Disclaimer | -mail
Restrictions
ChanRobles Virtual Law Library
chanrobles.com