G.R. No. 132955 - Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals

The accused, PO1 Cyril A. De Gracia, was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a non-bailable offense punishable by reclusion perpetua.
While detained at the Manila City Jail, De Gracia filed a petition for bail on February 22, 2012, which became the subject of extensive judicial proceedings.

On the night of December 28–29, 2011, a post-Christmas party was held at the house of Rio Polintan in Malate, Manila, attended by several individuals including David Paul (the victim), Robert, Joshua, Merwin, Bless, and others.
De Gracia, in civilian clothes despite being a policeman, arrived at the party and interjected himself into the gathering.
During the event, he conversed with party-goers and interacted with Bless, reportedly commenting on his role as a "gate-crasher" and engaging in further banter.

At approximately 2:00 in the morning, witness testimonies detailed that a tense altercation occurred:

Bless remarked in a provocative manner, and in response, De Gracia reacted despite the absence of any heated discussion.
Witnesses reported that De Gracia pointed his gun at David and subsequently fired the shot.

Testimony from Robert indicating that De Gracia was very close to David when the shot was fired.
Joshua and Merwin corroborated that after a brief verbal exchange, the shooting happened suddenly, with no time for deliberation on De Gracia's part.
Merwin’s observation that following the gunshot, De Gracia manipulated his firearm (loading the magazine and holstering it) before approaching David.

In the immediate aftermath, De Gracia’s actions—such as his attempt to assist David by bringing him to a hospital—were pointed out by the CA as inconsistent with a premeditated, treacherous attack.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted De Gracia’s petition for bail on August 31, 2012, ruling that the qualifying element of treachery in the murder charge was not sufficiently evidenced.
The RTC held that the killing had been impulsive (on the spur of the moment) and not marked by any deliberate, premeditated planning which would support a finding of treachery.
The public prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, which maintained that, despite the non-bailable nature of the offense, bail could be granted since there was no strong evidence of guilt.

Appellate Review and Contentions of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)

The OSG filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that De Gracia had "decided" to shoot in an instant, thus clearly demonstrating treachery.
The CA, however, dismissed the OSG’s petition on February 10, 2014, holding that:

While the shooting was sudden, there was no conclusive evidence that De Gracia consciously and deliberately employed a mode of attack that deprived the victim of any chance to defend himself.
The overall circumstances before and after the shooting revealed no treacherous intent.

The CA’s decision, as well as the subsequent denial of the OSG’s motion for reconsideration, were later adopted by the Supreme Court upon review.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s ruling that the evidence against PO1 Cyril A. De Gracia was not strong enough to warrant the denial of bail.

Central to the issue is the determination of whether the prosecution successfully established the qualifying element of treachery in the commission of the murder.
The contention revolves around whether the suddenness of the shooting and the circumstances surrounding it amount to a deliberate and conscious adoption of a treacherous method of attack.

Whether a non-bailable offense, such as murder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, automatically precludes the granting of bail in the absence of strong evidence of guilt.

This issue examines the constitutional right to bail under Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and the conditions under which bail may be granted despite the non-bailable nature of the offense.