Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Plaza y Bucalon
Case
G.R. No. 176933
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2009
Respondent charged with Murder; trial court ruled evidence sufficient only for Homicide, a bailable offense. Bail granted; Supreme Court upheld decision, affirming motion to fix bail as valid application.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 151370)

Background of the Case

The case was initially assigned to Branch 30 of the Surigao RTC, presided over by Judge Floripinas Buyser. After the prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence, the respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which Judge Buyser subsequently denied. The court adjudicated that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt only for homicide, not murder, due to the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Motion to Fix Bail

Following the ruling, the respondent filed a Motion to Fix Amount of Bail Bond, proposing a bail amount of P40,000, which he argued was the usual for homicide charges in that jurisdiction. The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing that the original charge was murder, which is non-bailable, and contended that the respondent's action was improper as he should have filed a full application for bail instead.

Judicial Proceedings and Transfer

During the proceedings on the motion for bail, a question regarding Judge Buyser's impartiality led to his inhibition and the reassignment of the case to Branch 29, presided over by Judge Jose Manuel Tan. Judge Tan, aligning with Judge Buyser’s previous assessment, ruled that since the evidence suggested only homicide, which is bailable, he granted the motion and set the bail amount at P40,000.

Appeal and Certiorari Petition

Roberto Murcia, the victim's brother, together with the People as co-petitioners, challenged Judge Tan’s order by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Murcia's argument centered around the procedural flaws in granting bail without a formal application or a required hearing. The Office of the Solicitor General supported this viewpoint, asserting that the grant of bail lacked necessary judicial scrutiny.

Court of Appeals Decision

On January 31, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed Murcia’s petition, asserting that the motion to fix bail constituted an application for bail. The appellate court affirmed the orders of Judge Tan, concluding that the hearing conducted was sufficient and in accordance with due process requirements.

Supreme Court Rulings and Legal Principles

In the Supreme Court's judgment, it was contended that the Court of Appeals erroneously ruled that sufficient procedures were followed. Citing Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Court emphasized that bail is a right for individuals charged with non-capital offenses unless evidence of guilt is strong. It is estab

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.