Case Digest (G.R. No. 176933)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines charged Luis Plaza y Bucalon with Murder in the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30. After the prosecution rested, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which Judge Floripinas Buyser denied on March 14, 2002, stating the evidence proved only Homicide and not Murder.Judge Buyser inhibited after a prosecutor questioned his impartiality and the case was transferred to Branch 29 where Judge Jose Manuel Tan, by Order dated November 12, 2002, fixed respondent's bail at P40,000 on respondent's Motion to Fix Amount of Bail Bond; respondent posted bond and was released. The Court of Appeals affirmed on January 31, 2007, and the Supreme Court denied the People's petition in G.R. No. 176933.
Issues:
- Was respondent entitled to bail after the trial court found the prosecution evidence sufficient only for Homicide though he was indicted for Murder?
- Did the proceedings before Judge Buyser and Judge Tan satisfy the requirement of a *summary hearing
Case Digest (G.R. No. 176933)
Facts:
- Parties and case origin
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, charged LUIS PLAZA Y BUCALON (Respondent) with Murder.
- The criminal case was originally raffled to Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, presided by Judge Floripinas Buyser.
- Proceedings before Judge Buyser
- The prosecution presented its evidence and then rested.
- Respondent, with leave of court, filed a Demurrer to Evidence.
- By Order dated March 14, 2002, Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer and stated that the prosecution evidence was sufficient only to prove Homicide and not Murder because the qualifying circumstance of treachery could not be appreciated.
- Defense presentation and motion for bail bond
- The defense commenced its presentation of evidence on May 15, 2002 and rested on August 12, 2003.
- While presenting evidence, respondent filed a Motion to Fix Amount of Bail Bond seeking P40,000 as customary for Homicide in the RTC of Surigao City and Surigao del Norte.
- The prosecution filed an Opposition asserting, inter alia, that (a) the case was for Murder and non-bailable; (b) it had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the proper charge; (c) the accused should have filed an application for bail; (d) the accused had waived his right to apply for bail at that stage; (e) Judge Buyser’s March 14, 2002 Order was a mere opinion with no legal effect; and (f) treachery could still be proved on rebuttal.
- Transfer and action by Branch 29
- Senior State Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo questioned Judge Buyser’s impartiality, prompting Judge Buyser to inhibit and the case to be transferred to Branch 29.
- Branch 29 Presiding Judge Jose Manuel Tan heard the Motion to Fix Amount of Bail Bond.
- By Order dated November 12, 2002, Judge Tan concurred with Judge Buyser’s assessment that the prosecution evidence proved only Homicide and, as Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal and is bailable, granted the Motion and fixed bail at P40,000.
- The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and prayer for Judge Tan’s inhibition were denied on February 10, 2003.
- Release, certiorari to the Court of Appeals, and appeal to the Supreme Court
- Respondent was released after posting the P40,000 bond.
- Roberto Murcia, the victim’s brother, impleaded the People and filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals contending that Judge Tan gra...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Proper characterization of respondent’s filing and procedure required for bail
- Whether respondent’s Motion to Fix Amount of Bail Bond constituted an application for bail sufficient to satisfy procedural requirements.
- Requirement and sufficiency of a hearing when bail is discretionary
- Whether the hearing conducted satisfied the requirement of due process when bail is discretionary under Section 13, Article III of the Constitution and Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- Effect of denial of Demurrer to Evidence
- Whether Judge Buyser’s March 14, 2002 Order denying the Demurrer and stating that evidence proved only Homicide had legal effect to permit grant of bail without a separate summary hearing.
- Applicability of Section 5, Rule 114
- Whether Section 5, Rule 114 applied to bar bail in the posture of this case....(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)