People vs. Cabral 1.

Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the

G.R. No. 131909 18 February 1999
Facts:
1. Accused Odiamar was charged with rape upon the
complaint of Cecille Buenafe. In a bid to secure a
temporary liberty, accused-respondent filed a motion
praying that he be released on bail which the
petitioner opposed by presenting real, documentary
and testimonial evidence. The lower court however,
granted the motion to bail on the ground that the
evidence is not strong.
2. Believing that the accused- respondent was not
entitled to bail as the evidence against him was
strong, the prosecution filed two motions which the
lowered court disposed of.
3. On appeal before the CA, the CA denied the petition.
application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation;
2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses
to present evidence to show that the guilt of the
accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the
court to exercise its discretion.
3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is
strong based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
accused upon the approval of the bailbond.
Otherwise, petition should be denied.
.

Issue: Whether the CA acted with grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
the issuing the assailed decision and resolution despite a
showing by the prosecution that there is strong evidence
proving respondent’s guilt for the crime charged.

Ruling:
1. Yes,
2. The grant or denial of an application for bail is
dependent on whether the evidence of guilt is strong
which the lower court should determine in a hearing
called for the purpose.
3. In this case, accused- respondent was being charged
with rape qualified by the use of deadly weapon
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
4. As such, bail is discretionary and not a matter of right.
5. The grant or denial of an application for bail is,
therefore dependent on whether the evidence of
guilt is strong which the lower court should
determine in a hearing called for the purpose.
6. The determination of whether the evidence of guilt is
strong , in this regard, is a matter of judicial
discretion.
7. While the lower court would never be deprived of its
mandated prerogative to exercise judicial discretion,
this court would unhesitatingly reverse the trial
court’s findings if found to be laced with grave abuse
of discretion.
8. Wherefore petition is granted.

Duties of judge in case an application for bail is filed: