G.R. No.

126859 November 24, 1998

YOUSEF AL-GHOUL, ISAM MOHAMMAD ABDULHADI, WAIL RASHID AL-KHATIB, NABEEL

NASSER AL-RIYAMI, ET AL, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

RESOLUTION

QUISUMBING, J.:

This resolves petitioners' Motion for Clarification or Partial Lifting of Temporary Restraining Order on
the Motion for Bail which was filed on May 25, 1998.

Herein petitioners are detention prisoners who were arrested and charged with illegal possession of
firearms, ammunitions and explosives under Sections 1 and 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866
before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 123,1 as a consequence of the search
conducted pursuant to the search warrants issued by the RTC of Kalookan City, Branch 125.

After their arrest, petitioners filed a motion for bail. However, the resolution of the same was
held in abeyance by the trial court pending the presentation of evidence by the prosecution
to enable the court to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. Upon formal
offer by the prosecution of its evidence consisting of Exhibits "A" to "UU", petitioners
objected to the same for being inadmissible. In its Order dated February 7,
1996, 2 the trial court admitted all the exhibits being offered by the prosecution for whatever
purpose that it may be worth. Subsequently, the trial court issued the Order dated February
19, 19963 denying petitioners motion for bail on the ground that the law under which
petitioners are charged prescribes a penalty of reclusion perpetua and that the evidence of
guilt is strong.

Thereafter, petitioners proceeded to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals, 4 assailing the aforementioned orders issued by the trial court admitting the
evidence of the prosecution and denying petitioners' motion for bail. In its Decision dated
September 30, 1996 5 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari and affirmed
the assailed orders of trial court pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, as amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-94.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed before this Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
seeking the reversal of the September 30, 1996 decision of respondent Court of Appeals for
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of or in excess of
jurisdiction. Additionally, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
enjoining the trial court from proceeding with the trial of the criminal cases.

On November 20, 1996, the Court, without giving due course to the petition, resolved to
require the respondents to file its comment to the petition and at the same time issued the
temporary restraining order prayed for, effective during the entire period that the case is
pending or until further orders from the Court.6
On October 30, 1997, petitioners filed a Manifestation7 alleging that with the enactment of
Republic Act No. 8294, amending P.D. 1866, the penalty for the offenses under which
petitioners are being charged has been reduced from the penalty ranging from reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua, to only the penalty ranging from prision mayor to reclusion
temporal, hence, petitioners are now entitled to bail regardless of the strength of evidence
against them.

On May 25, 1998, petitioner, through a new counsel, filed the instant Motion for Clarification
or Partial Lifting of TRO on the Matter of Bail,8 seeking the partial lifting of the temporary
restraining order issued by this Court to allow the trial court to proceed with the hearing on
petitioners' motion for bail in view of the amendment introduced by RA 8294.

On July 6, 1998, the Court required the respondents to file their Comment to petitioners'
motion.9compliance therewith, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it is not
interposing any objection to petitioners' motion for the partial lifting of the temporary
restraining order issued by this Court to enable the trial court to hear and resolve petitioners
motion for bail, considering the amendment introduced by RA 8294 which reduced the
penalties for illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives, thereby entitling
petitioners to be admitted to bail a matter of right before conviction by the trial court, in
accordance with Section 4 of SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94.10

Consequent to the enactment of RA 8294, the penalty prescribed in Section 1 and 3 of P.D.
1866 for illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives under which petitioners
were charged, has now been reduced to prision mayor in its minimum period11 and prision
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal,12 respectively. Evidently, petitioners are
now entitled to bail as a matter of right prior to their conviction by the trial court pursuant to
Section 4 of SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 which provides as follows:

Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right. — . . . (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties,
or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule.

WHEREFORE, the petitioners' motion is hereby GRANTED. The Temporary Restraining Order
issued by this Court in the Resolution of November 20, 1996 is hereby PARTIALLY LIFTED in
so far as petitioners' pending motion for bail before the RTC of Kalookan City, Branch 123 is
concerned. The trial court is hereby ordered to proceed with the hearing of the motion for bail
and resolve the same with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., concur.