G.R. No. 176933 - People vs. Plaza y Bucalon

The People of the Philippines initiated a petition for review on certiorari, challenging a decision of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed an earlier order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch 29.
The case involved respondent Luis Bucalon Plaza, alias Loloy Plaza, who was indicted for Murder.

The case was originally raffled to Branch 30 of the RTC under Judge Floripinas Buyser.
After the prosecution rested its case, respondent, with leave of court, filed a Demurrer to Evidence.
Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer on March 14, 2002, emphasizing that the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to prove only Homicide—not Murder—since the qualifying circumstance of treachery could not be appreciated.

Following the denial of the Demurrer, the defense presented its own evidence and filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond.
Respondent argued that, given the ruling that the evidence only supported Homicide (a bailable offense punishable by reclusion temporal), his temporary liberty could be secured on bail, requesting a bail bond of P40,000.
The prosecution, in its opposition, contended that:

The proper criminal charge was Murder, a non-bailable offense due to the imposition of reclusion temporal to death.
The prosecution held exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of the crime for charging purposes.
The respondent should have filed a formal application for bail rather than merely moving to fix the bail amount.
The accused had waived his right to apply for bail at that stage of the proceedings.
Judge Buyser’s March 14, 2002 Order—being merely an opinion not a formal ruling—had no binding legal effect on the bail issue as it exceeded the scope of the Demurrer.

During the hearing on the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond, State Prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo raised questions regarding Judge Buyser’s impartiality.
As a result, Judge Buyser inhibited himself and ordered the transfer of the case to Branch 29 of the RTC.
Presiding Judge Jose Manuel Tan, at Branch 29, evaluated the bail motion and, concurring that the prosecution’s evidence sufficed only to establish Homicide, ruled that the respondent was entitled to bail.
Judge Tan fixed the bail bond at P40,000, a decision that was later not reconsidered upon the People’s motion for inhibition and reconsideration.

Roberto Murcia, the victim’s brother, impleaded the People as co-petitioner and challenged the trial court’s orders through a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Murcia faulted the granting of bail without a formal application and the absence of a mandatory hearing to test the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supported Murcia’s argument, contending that the grant of bail without a separate hearing contravened prevailing jurisprudence.
The Court of Appeals, by a decision dated January 31, 2007, dismissed Murcia’s petition and affirmed Judge Tan’s orders, holding that the allegations in the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond effectively constituted an application for bail.

In its present petition, the People contended that the Court of Appeals had decided a question of substance contrary to law by ruling that:

The petition raised constitutional questions under Section 13, Article III of the Constitution and referred to provisions of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding the right to bail.

Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that all persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence is strong, are bailable before conviction.
Section 4 of Rule 114 mandates that all persons in custody, before conviction by a regional trial court for non-capital offenses, are entitled to bail as a matter of right.
The case underscores that the discretionary power to grant bail is to be exercised based on whether the evidence presented is strong.

Whether the summary hearing conducted by Judge Tan was sufficient to satisfy the due process requirements in determining the accused’s entitlement to bail.
Whether the transformation of the charge from Murder to Homicide—based on the evidentiary findings—automatically entitles the accused to bail.
Whether the issuance of the bail order without a separate or formal application for bail and without a full evidentiary hearing violates established procedural rights.
Whether the prior judicial opinions and the denial of the Demurrer have any legally binding effect on the subsequent bail motion and decision.