G.R. No. L-31568 - People vs. Dorico

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31568)

Petitioners’ Claim and Relief Sought

Petitioners sought release of the cash bond after the criminal case against Cruz was dismissed. They filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to challenge the Regional Trial Court’s denial of their Motion to Release Cash Bond, asserting that the denial amounted to grave abuse of discretion because Rule 114, Section 22 of the Rules of Court deems bail automatically cancelled upon dismissal of the case.

Procedural History

An Information was filed on September 19, 2013. The private complainant later executed an Affidavit of Desistance. On October 23, 2014, the Assistant City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the RTC granted by Order dated October 24, 2014. Petitioners then filed a Motion to Release Cash Bond, which the RTC denied in an Order dated January 7, 2015 on the ground that dismissal was due to desistance and not acquittal. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on April 6, 2015. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on January 18, 2016 for being the wrong remedy (holding that an appeal should have been sought); the CA denied reconsideration by Resolution dated June 1, 2016. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the constitutional backdrop for judicial review. The specific procedural provisions at issue are Rules of Court, Rule 114, Section 22 (Cancellation of bail) and Rule 65, Section 1 (petition for certiorari). Related provisions governing application of cash bonds to fines and costs (Rule 114, Section 14) and forfeiture procedures (Rule 114, Section 15) were also referenced in the courts’ analyses and in cited jurisprudence.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy, i.e., whether the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Release Cash Bond constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that would render certiorari the appropriate remedy.

Nature and Purpose of Certiorari

The Court reiterated that certiorari is a narrow, extraordinary remedy designed to keep inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies within the bounds of their jurisdiction and to correct acts tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari is unavailable where an ordinary appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, can correct the error. The petitioner must therefore allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and the absence of any adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Definition and Standard for Grave Abuse of Discretion

Grave abuse of discretion is defined in the authorities cited as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross and amounts to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Non-compliance with clear mandates of procedural rules and an “obstinate disregard” of basic and established rules constitute grave abuse, not merely an error of judgment.

Application of Rule 114, Section 22

Rule 114, Section 22 expressly provides that bail is “deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction,” and that cancellation is “without prejudice to any liability on the bail.” The Court, referencing the Office of the Solicitor General’s position, observed that the Rule’s language does not limit cancellation to dismissals by acquittal; dismissal by desistance also triggers automatic cancellation.

RTC’s Error and Its Characterization as Grave Abuse

The RTC denied the Motion to Release Cash Bond on the basis that the dismissal was due to desistance rather than acquittal. Given the plain language of Rule 114, Section 22, the RTC’s refusal to release the bond despite the dismissal constituted a blatant disregard of the Rules of Court. The Court held that such manifest noncompliance with an established procedural provision is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, thereby making certiorari the proper remedy.

Consideration of Precedents Cited by the Court of Appeals

The Court examined the CA’s reliance on Belfast Surety and Babasa, which addressed remedies for forfeiture or denial of bond cancellation. It clarified that those authorities do not preclude certiorari when the lower court acted in excess of or without jurisdiction. Belfast Surety itself acknowledged that while appeal is ordinarily the proper remedy, certiorari remains available where the judgment complained of was issued without jurisdiction or where appeal is not an adequate remedy. Babasa recognized appealability of denial of cancellation but did not foreclose certiorari in cases of jurisdictional excess or grave abuse.

Cash Bond Specifics and Immediate Release in This Case

The Court noted the legal distinction that cash bonds may be applied to fines and

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31568)

Procedural Posture

Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 18, 2016 and Resolution dated June 1, 2016 that dismissed their Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy. (Rollo references cited: Decision [2]; Resolution [3]; Petition [1].)
The Petition to the Court of Appeals had sought review of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, City of Malabon’s Orders denying the Motion to Release Cash Bond (Order dated January 7, 2015) and denying the Motion for Reconsideration (Order dated April 6, 2015). (Rollo, pp. 56, 55, 59-60.)
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground that petitioners should have filed an appeal rather than a petition for certiorari, and further stated it could not treat the petition as an appeal because the period for appeal had lapsed before filing. (Rollo, pp. 34–37; Decision at p. 36–37.)
The Supreme Court, through Justice Leonen, granted review, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for resolution on the merits. The Decision was rendered with concurrence of Peralta (Acting Chairperson), Mendoza, and Martires, JJ.; Carpio, J. on official leave. (Rollo, pp. 12–29; Decision: disposition.)

Factual Background

An Information dated September 19, 2013 charged petitioner Marvin Cruz, together with seven others, with Robbery in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band for unlawfully taking four sacks filled with scraps of bronze metal and a copper pipe, with the collective value stated as P72,000.00. (Rollo, p. 62; Facts.)
Cruz posted bail by way of a cash bond in the amount of P12,000.00. (Rollo, p. 35.)
The private complainant executed an Affidavit of Desistance stating he was no longer interested in pursuing the complaint against Cruz. (Rollo, p. 64.)
Assistant City Prosecutor Deborah Marie Tan filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 23, 2014, based on the private complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance. (Rollo, p. 63.)
Branch 170, Regional Trial Court, City of Malabon granted the Motion to Dismiss in an Order dated October 24, 2014, which reads that the case against Marvin Cruz is “hereby DISMISSED.” The Order did not impose any fine nor specify any costs of court. (Rollo, p. 65; Order text.)
After dismissal, petitioner Cruz, through his bondsman Francisco Cruz, filed a Motion to Release Cash Bond which the trial court denied in its Order dated January 7, 2015. (Rollo, p. 57; p. 56.)
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Francisco was likewise denied in an Order dated April 6, 2015. (Rollo, p. 55.)

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that certiorari was the wrong remedy to question the Regional Trial Court’s denial of the Motion to Release Cash Bond.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners contended that filing a petition for certiorari was proper because the Regional Trial Court’s denial of the Motion to Release Cash Bond amounted to grave abuse of discretion. (Rollo, pp. 12–29.)
Petitioners relied on Rule 114, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, arguing that bail is deemed automatically cancelled upon the dismissal of the case regardless of whether dismissal was by acquittal or desistance; thus, the trial court had no legal basis to deny the release of the cash bond. (Rollo, pp. 18–19; Rule citation [21].)

Respondent / Office of the Solicitor General’s Contentions

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) acknowledged that Rule 114, Section 22 provides for automatic cancellation of bail upon dismissal but emphasized that such cancellation is “without prejudice to any liability on the bail,” arguing that the cancellation does not automatically mean immediate release because the cancellation may be subject to further proceedings as to liabilities. (Rollo, p. 105; p. 106–108.)
The OSG further argued that if the trial court erred in denying the Motion to Release Cash Bond, that error was perhaps a mistake in application of the law and not grave abuse of discretion; therefore, it should not be the subject of a petition for certiorari. (Rollo, pp. 106–108.)

Applicable Legal Provisions and Doctrines

Rule 114, Section 22, Rules of Court: provides for cancellation of bail and states that “The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction. In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail.” (Rollo, Rule citation [21].)
Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Court: prescribes the requisites for a petition for certiorari—namely, that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal or any plain