PEOPLE VS. JUDGE DONATO [198 SCRA 130; G.R. NO.

79269; 5 JUN 1991]

Thursday, February 12, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Private respondent and his co-accused were charged of rebellion on October 2, 1986 for acts
committed before and after February 1986. Private respondent filed with a Motion to Quash alleging that:
(a) the factsalleged do not constitute an offense; (b) the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged; (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants; and (d) the criminal action
or liability has been extinguished. This was denied. May 9, 1987 Respondent filed a petition for bail,
which was opposed that the respondent is not entitled to bail anymore since rebellion became a capital
offense under PD 1996, 942 and 1834 amending ART. 135 of RPC. On 5 June 1987 the President issued
Executive Order No. 187 repealing, among others, P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834 and restoring to
full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees.
Judge Donatonow granted the bail, which was fixed at P30,000.00 and imposed a condition that he shall
report to the court once every two months within the first ten days of every period thereof. Petitioner filed
a supplemental motion for reconsideration indirectly asking the court to deny bail to and to allow it to
present evidence in support thereof considering the "inevitable probability that the accused will not
comply with this main condition of his bail. It was contended that:

1. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from detention
when arrested; (Chairman of CPP-NPA)
2. He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address;
3. He was using the false name "Manuel Mercado Castro" at the time of his arrest and presented a Driver's
License to substantiate his falseidentity;
4. The address he gave "Panamitan, Kawit, Cavite," turned out to be also a false address;
5. He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and
address were also found to be false;
6. Pursuant to Ministry Order No. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 , a reward of P250,000.00 was offered and
paid for his arrest.

This however was denied. Hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether or Not the private respondent has the right to bail.
Held: Yes. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital
offense, therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence. It is only when it is a capital offense that
the right becomes discretionary. However it was wrong for the Judge to change the amount of bail from
30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution.

Republic Act No. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990, providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to the
crime of rebellion, is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him.

Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case(petition for habeascorpus). Agreements were
made therein: accused to remain under custody, whereas his co-detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo
Concepcion will be released immediately, with a condition that they will submit themselves in the
jurisdiction of the court. Said petition for HC was dismissed. Bail is the security given for the release of a
person in custody of the law. Ergo, there was a waiver. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of
the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose
waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial
to a third person with a right recognized by law.