2/14/2017 People vs Cabral : 131909 : Synopsis/Syllabi

SYNOPSIS
Odiamarwaschargedwithrape,andinabidtosecuretemporaryliberty,hefiledamotionprayingthat
hebereleasedonbail.Despitethepeoplesoppositiontothesame,thelowercourtgrantedthemotion.The
People then filed a Motion to Recall and Invalidate the Order of Release on Bail on the ground that the
evidenceofguiltagainstOdiarnarwasstrong.Thelowercourt,however,deniedthesame,andtheCourtof
Appealssustainedthedenial.Hence,theinstantappeal.
Odiamarwasbeingchargedwithrapequalifiedbytheuseofadeadlyweaponpunishablebyreclusion
perpetuatodeath.Assuch,bailisdiscretionaryandnotamatterofright,dependingonwhethertheevidence
ofguiltisstrong.Thismeansthateventhoughthereisareasonabledoubtastotheguiltoftheaccused,ifon
anexaminationoftheentirerecord,thepresumptionisgreatthataccusedisguiltyofacapitaloffense,bail
shouldberefused.
Here,thelowercourtsOrderfailedtoincludesomesignificantfactorsandcircumstanceswhich,tothe
mindoftheCourt,arestrong,clearandconvincing.Further,thelowercourtmisappliedsomedoctrinesin
criminal law, abusing its discretion and showing manifest bias in favor of Odiamar in determining which
circumstancesaretobeconsideredinsupportingitsdecisionastohisguilt.Itmustbenotedthatafterthe
conduct of two preliminary investigations, no bail was recommended in the information. Such
recommendationconstitutesclearandstrongevidenceofguiltoftheaccused.Also,thelowercourtdidnot
strictly comply with jurisprudential guidelines in the exercise of its discretion. The courts granting or
refusingbailmustcontainasummaryoftheevidencefortheprosecutionwhichisacompletecompilationof
allthepiecesofevidencepresentedduringthehearingproper.Here,however,theenumerationinthesaid
summarywasincomplete.
Hence,theOrderofReleaseonBailwasvoid,havingbeenissuedingraveabuseofdiscretion.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RIGHT TO BAIL WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG
DETERMINATIONTHEREOF.Accusedrespondentwasbeingchargedwithrapequalifiedbytheuseofadeadlyweapon
punishablebyreclusionperpetuatodeath.Assuch,bailisdiscretionaryandnotamatterofright.Thegrantordenialofan
applicationforbailis,therefore,dependentonwhethertheevidenceofguiltisstrongwhichthelowercourtshoulddetermine
inahearingcalledforthepurpose.Thedeterminationofwhethertheevidenceofguiltisstrong,inthisregard,isamatterof
judicialdiscretion.Whilethelowercourtwouldneverbedeprivedofitsmandatedprerogativetoexercisejudicialdiscretion,
thisCourtwouldunhesitatinglyreversethetrialcourtsfindingsiffoundtobelacedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.
2. ID. ID. ID. ID. ID. JUDICIAL DISCRETION. By judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of whether
proofisevidentorthepresumptionofguiltisstrong.ProofevidentorEvidentproofinthisconnectionhasbeenheldtomean
clear, strong evidence which leads a weliguarded dispassionatejudgment to the conclusion that the offense has been
committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is
administered.Presumptiongreatexistswhenthecircumstancestestifiedtoaresuchthattheinferenceofguiltnaturallytobe
drawntherefromisstrong,clearandconvincingtoanunbiasedjudgmentandexcludesallreasonableprobabilityofanyother
conclusionEventhoughthereisareasonabledoubtastotheguiltofaccused,ifonanexaminationoftheentirerecordthe
presumptionisgreatthataccusedisguiltyofacapitaloffense,bailshouldberefused.(Italicssupplied)Inotherwords,the
testisnotwhethertheevidencedestablishesguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtbutratherwhetheritshowsevidentguiltoragreat
presumptionofguilt.Assuch,thecourtisministeriallyboundtodecidewhichcircumstancesandfactorsarepresentwhich
wouldshowevidentguiltorpresumptionofguiltasdefinedabove.
3.ID.ID.ID.ID.ID.ID.OBSERVATIONOFTHECOURTINCASEATBAR.ThisCourthasobservedthatthelower
courts order failed to mention and include some significant factors and circumstances which to the mind of this Court are
strong, clear and convincing. First, it excluded the testimony on the psychiatric examination of the victim as well as the
findings thereof which should have been considered and included as it was given by an expert witness. Further, the
unrebuttedofferofcompromisebyaccusedrespondentisanimpliedadmissionofguiltwhichshouldhavebeennotedasan
offer of a compromise is generally considered as admissible evidence against the party making it. Aside from failing to
mentionthoseimportantpiecesofevidenceandtestimoniesandmisinterpretingthemedicalfindings,thisCourthaslikewise
observedthatthelowercourtmisappliedsomedoctrinesincriminallaw.Therewasnofindingofanyillmotiveonthepart
ofcomplainantinfilingtherapechargeagainstaccusedrespondent.Thisshouldhavebeentakenintoconsideration.Further,
aftertheconductoftwo(2)preliminaryinvestigations,nobailwasrecommendedintheinformation.Suchrecommendation
constitutesclearandstrongevidenceofguiltoftheaccused.
4. ID. ID. ID. ID. ID. ID. LIMITATION THEREOF.From Our observations, the lower court abused its discretion and
showedmanifestbiasinfavorofaccusedrespondentindeterminingwhichcircumstancesaretobeconsideredinsupporting
itsdecisionastotheguiltofaccusedrespondent.Inthisregard,itmustberememberedthatthediscretiontobeexercisedin
granting or denying bail, is not absolute nor beyond control. It must be sound, and exercised within reasonable bounds.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/syllabi99/Feb/131909_syl.htm 1/3
2/14/2017 People vs Cabral : 131909 : Synopsis/Syllabi
Judicialdiscretion,byitsverynature,involvestheexerciseofthejudgesindividualopinion.Itisbecauseofitsverynature
that the law has wisely provided that its exercise be guided by wellknown rules which, while allowing the judge rational
latitude for the operation of his own individual views, prevent them from getting out of control. An uncontrolled or
uncontrollablediscretiononthepartofajudgeisamisnomer.Itisfallacy.LordMansfield,speakingofthediscretiontobe
exercisedingrantingordenyingbailsaidButdiscretionwhenappliedtoacourtofjustice,meanssounddiscretionguidedby
law.Itmustbegovernedbyrule,notbyhumouritmustnotbearbitrary,vagueandfancifulbutlegalandregular.
5.ID.ID.ID.ID.ID.ID.GUIDELINESNOTCOMPLIEDWITHINCASEATBAR.Asidefromtheapparentabuseof
discretion in determining which circumstances and pieces of evidence are to be considered, the lower court also did not
strictlycomplywithjurisprudentialguidelinesintheexerciseofdiscretion.AsreiteratedinCarpiov.Maglalang,discretionis
guidedby: first, the applicable provisions of the Constitution and the statutes second,by the rules which this Court may
promulgateandthird,bythoseprinciplesofequityandjusticethataredeemedtobepartofthelawsoftheland.Thepresent
Constitution,aspreviouslyadvertedto,providesthatincrimespunishablebyreclusionperpetuawhen evidence of guilt is
strong, bail is not a matter of right. This Court has reiterated this mandate in Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Recently,thisCourtlaiddownthefollowingrulesinBascov.JudgeRapatalowhichoutlinedthedutiesofajudgeincasean
applicationforbailisfiled:(1)Notifytheprosecutorofthehearingoftheapplicationforbailorrequirehimtosubmithis
recommendation (2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to
presentevidencetoshowthattheguiltoftheaccusedisstrongforthepurposeofenablingthecourttoexerciseitsdiscretion
(3)Decidewhethertheevidenceofguiltoftheaccusedisstrongbasedonthesummaryofevidenceoftheprosecution(Italics
supplied)(4)Iftheguiltoftheaccusedisnotstrong,dischargetheaccusedupontheapprovalofthebailbond.Otherwise,
petitionshouldbedenied.Basedontheabovecitedprocedureandrequirements,afterthehearing,thecourtsordergranting
orrefusingbailmustcontainasummaryoftheevidencefortheprosecution.Asummaryisdefinedasacomprehensiveand
usuallybriefabstractordigestofatextorstatement.
6.ID.ID.ID.ID.ID.ID.ONSUMMARYOFEVIDENCEREASONSTHEREOF.Therearetwocorollaryreasonsfor
thesummary.First,thesummaryoftheevidenceintheorderisanextensionofthehearingproper,thus,apartofprocedural
due process wherein the evidence presented during the prior hearing is formally recognized as having been presented and
mostimportantly,considered.Thefailuretoincludeeverypieceofevidenceinthesummarypresentedbytheprosecutionin
theirfavorduringthepriorhearingwouldbetantamounttonotgivingthemtheopportunitytobeheardinsaidhearing,for
theinferencewouldbethattheywerenotconsideredatallinweighingtheevidenceofguilt.Suchwouldbeadenialofdue
process,fordueprocessmeansnotonlygivingeverycontendingpartytheopportunitytobeheardbutalsofortheCourtto
considereverypieceofevidencepresentedintheirfavor.Second,thesummaryoftheevidenceintheorderisthebasisfor
thejudgesexercisinghisjudicialdiscretion.Onlyafterweighingthepiecesofevidenceascontainedinthesummarywillthe
judgeformulatehisownconclusionastowhethertheevidenceofguiltagainsttheaccusedisstrongbasedonhisdiscretion.
(Italicssupplied)
7. ID. ID. ID. ID. ID. ID. ID. ID. EFFECT WHEN INCOMPLETE. The summary should necessarily be a complete
compilationorrestatementofallthepiecesofevidencepresentedduringthehearingproper.Thelowercourtcannotexercise
judicialdiscretionastowhatpiecesofevidenceshouldbeincludedinthesummary.Whileconcedingthatsomeprosecution
evidencewereenumerated,saidenumerationwasincomplete.Anincompleteenumerationorselectiveinclusionofpiecesof
evidencefortheprosecutionintheordercannotbeconsideredasummary,forasummaryisnecessarilyareasonablerecitalof
anyevidencepresentedbytheprosecution.Asummary:thatisincompleteisnotasummaryatall.AccordingtoBorinagav.
Tamin,theabsenceofasummaryintheorderwouldmakesaidorderdefectiveinformandsubstance.Corollarily,anorder
containinganincompletesummarywouldliketobedefectiveinformandsubstancewhichcannotbesustainedorbegivena
semblanceofvalidity.InCarpiov.Maglalang,saidorderwasconsidereddefectiveandvoidable.Assuch,theordergranting
ordenyingtheapplicationforbailmaybeinvalidated.

VITUG,J.,dissentingopinion:

1. REMEDIAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BAIL IN AN INDICTMENT FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE,

ACCUSEDNOTENTITLEDTHERETOWHENEVIDENCEOFGUILTISSTRONG.Inanindictmentforacapital
offense, the accused is not entitled to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong, and it is the duty of the judge to hear the
partiesandtomakeanintelligentassessmentoftheevidencepresented.Whenthejudgeviewstheevidenceofguiltinsucha
capitaloffensenottobestrong,thegrantofbailbecomesamatterofsounddiscretiononhispart.
2. ID. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS CERTIORARI PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS WHEN AVAILABLEThe
extraordinary remedies under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are not open when the question is whether the trial judge has
erredintheexerciseofsounddiscretion.Thesespecialreliefsareavailableonlywhenthejudgehascommittedgraveabuse
ofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictioninhisdecisionorordersuchasbyarbitrarilyignoringtheevidenceor
completely acting on bias and whim. Even assuming that the judge has erred in his judgment, so long as grave abuse of
discretionisnotevidentinhisaction,theaforesaidexceptionalremediesarenotwarranted.Abuseofdiscretionmustbesuch
capriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentandmustbesuchsopatentandgrossastoamounttoanevasionofpositive
duty,oravirtualrefusaltoperformadutyenjoinedbylaw,ortoactatallincontemplationoflawaswherethepoweris
exercisedinadespoticmannerbyreason,forinstance,ofpassionandhostility.

APPEARANCESOFCOUNSEL
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/syllabi99/Feb/131909_syl.htm 2/3
2/14/2017 People vs Cabral : 131909 : Synopsis/Syllabi

TheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.
AmadorL.Simandoforprivaterespondent.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/syllabi99/Feb/131909_syl.htm 3/3