Case Digest (G.R. No. 224974)
Facts:
In the case Marvin Cruz and Francisco Cruz, in his capacity as bondsman, vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 224974, July 3, 2017), Marvin Cruz was charged with robbery along with seven others through an Information dated September 19, 2013, for unlawfully taking scrap metals valued at ₱72,000.00. Cruz posted bail by depositing a cash bond of ₱12,000.00 through his bondsman, Francisco Cruz. Later, the private complainant filed an affidavit of desistance stating disinterest in pursuing the complaint, leading the Assistant City Prosecutor, Deborah Marie Tan, to file a Motion to Dismiss the case. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 170 in Malabon granted the motion on October 24, 2014, dismissing the case. Following dismissal, the bondsman filed a Motion to Release Cash Bond, which the RTC denied on January 7, 2015, on the basis that the dismissal was due to desistance and not acquittal. The RTC also denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Francisco on April 6, 2015.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 224974)
Facts:
- Criminal Case Against Marvin Cruz
- Marvin Cruz, along with seven others, was charged with Robbery in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band for unlawfully taking four sacks of bronze metal scraps and a copper pipe worth ₱72,000.00.
- Cruz posted bail through a cash bond of ₱12,000.00.
- Dismissal of the Case
- The private complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance, indicating disinterest in pursuing the complaint against Cruz.
- Assistant City Prosecutor Deborah Marie Tan filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the complainant's desistance.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon granted the Motion to Dismiss on October 24, 2014.
- Motion to Release Cash Bond
- After the dismissal, Cruz, through his bondsman Francisco Cruz, filed a Motion to Release Cash Bond.
- The RTC denied the Motion on January 7, 2015, on the ground that dismissal was by desistance, not through acquittal.
- A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Francisco was also denied on April 6, 2015.
- Petition Before the Court of Appeals (CA)
- Cruz and Francisco filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA to challenge the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Release Cash Bond, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
- The CA dismissed the petition on January 18, 2016, ruling that the proper remedy was an appeal, not certiorari, and that the petition could not be treated as an appeal due to lapse of time for appeal.
- A Motion for Reconsideration to the CA was denied on June 1, 2016.
- Filing of the Present Petition for Review on Certiorari
- Petitioners Cruz and Francisco filed the present petition before this Court, insisting that certiorari was the proper remedy due to the RTC’s grave abuse of discretion.
- They rely on Rule 114, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, which provides that bail is automatically cancelled upon dismissal of the case regardless of the mode of dismissal.
- Position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
- OSG agrees that cancellation of bail is automatic under Rule 114, Section 22, but emphasizes that cancellation is without prejudice to any liability on the bond.
- The release of the bond is still subject to further proceedings to determine liabilities.
- The RTC’s alleged error was, at most, a mistake of law, not grave abuse of discretion that would warrant certiorari.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was the wrong remedy to question the RTC’s denial of a Motion to Release Cash Bond.
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Release Cash Bond following the dismissal of the criminal case by desistance.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)