RIGHT TO BAIL

MORENO V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 256070, September 19, 2022

The case at hand involves Cynthia G. Moreno (petitioner) against the Sandiganbayan, First
Division, and the People of the Philippines (respondents), with the resolution issued by the
Supreme Court on September 19, 2022. Cynthia G. Moreno served as mayor of Aloguinsan,
Cebu, for a total of twelve years and was serving as the incumbent when she, alongside
multiple co-accused, was indicted for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in Criminal Case No. SB-10-CRM-0236.

Petitioner and her co-accused filed before the Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which was docketed as G.R. No. 214117 and entitled Cynthia
G. Moreno, et al. vs. People of the Philippines. The Court denied the foregoing Petition in a
Resolution dated December 1, 2014. They filed a motion for the reconsideration which was
denied with finality in the Resolution dated November 9, 2015.10

Thereafter, petitioner and her co-accused filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment in
Criminal Case No. SB-10-CRM-0236, but this was denied by the Sandiganbayan in the
Resolution dated January 9, 2017. They filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration which was
also denied on March 24, 2017 for lack of merit.11

Undeterred, petitioner assailed the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions dated January 9, 2017 and
March 24, 2017 via a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court docketed as G.R.
No. 230823 entitled Cynthia G. Moreno v. People of the Philippines. The Court, however,
affirmed the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolutions on June 5, 2017.12

On June 25, 2019, petitioner's conviction for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 attained
finality.

On December 2, 2020, petitioner filed the Motion praying that she be allowed to serve her
sentence under home care or house arrest at Lunhaw Farm Resort, Barangay Bojo,
Municipality of Aloguinsan, Cebu, under the "direct and close monitoring and supervision of
the local [Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP)] officers, or [Probation] Officers
of the Department of Justice", together with her counsel by way of recognizance.

Issue
Whether Moreno was denied the right to bail

Ruling
No, Moreno was not denied the right to bail.

Here, the duration of the penalty meted to petitioner, i.e., 6 years and one month up to 10
years, is within the duration of prision mayor. Verily, the Sandiganbayan has no discretion to
allow petitioner to serve her sentence by rendering community service, more so, under
"home care/house arrest."
Notably, Article 88a of the RPC, as amended by RA 11362, did not state that sentence may
be served under "home care/house arrest" as prayed for by petitioner in her Motion and in
this Petition. Instead, it merely provides that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto
mayor may be served by rendering community service at the discretion of the court.

The Sandiganbayan correctly held that petitioner cannot take refuge in Paderanga because
the issue therein is whether the accused was denied the right to bail.

The concept of "constructive custody of the law" in Paderanga is limited to allowing the
courts to proceed with the bail application hearing even without the physical presence of the
accused if his or her absence is due to his or her health condition. By no stretch of the
imagination could this case be taken as a judicial precedent allowing a convicted
criminal, such as petitioner, to serve his or her sentence outside a penal institution
due to poor health conditions.

In the same vein, petitioner cannot likewise be released under recognizance. Section 3 of
RA 103893 defines recognizance as "a mode of securing the release of any person in
custody or detention for the commission of an offense who is unable to post bail due
to abject poverty." It must be stressed that petitioner's conviction for the crime charged
had long attained finality on June 25, 2019; hence, she can no longer be released on
bail.

Petitioner's fear of contracting COVID-19 is understandable; however, petitioner may not be

Essay Answer:

No, Moreno was not denied her right to bail. Under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, bail is a
matter of discretion when upon conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, life
sentence or reclusion perpetua, or if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding six years provided that none of the bail-negating circumstances are present.

Here, Moreno’s penalty duration is 6 years and one month up to 10 years, which qualifies it
under bail as a matter of discretion. Also, Moreno cannot be released under recognizance
Recognizance is defined as a mode of securing the release of any person in custody for the
commission of an offense who is unable to post bail due to abject poverty.
USAMA VS. TOMARONG, A.M. NO. RTJ-21-017

The case in question involves a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Marilou Casas Usama against
Retired Judge Oscar D. Tomarong, who served as the presiding judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 28, in Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte.

The events that led to this complaint occurred during the National and Local Elections on
May 9, 2016, where Alson Chan and Angeles Carloto were candidates for mayor in
Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte. On May 4, 2016, police received a report about a
suspicious van owned by Chan, leading to an encounter between law enforcement and
Chan's group that resulted in the death of PO1 Mirdan Usama, the complainant's husband.
Following this incident, Chan and his associates were arrested.

On May 5, 2016, Chan's counsel filed an application for bail at the RTC-Branch 28,
where Judge Tomarong presided. The application for bail was filed on a Muslim
holiday when courts were officially closed; Tomarong granted bail fixed at Php
200,000.00 within hours without conducting a hearing. Despite this, Officer-in-Charge
Allan Tingas refused to release Alson Chan, despite having received a copy of the Order.

On May 6, 2016, Alson Chan and his campaign volunteers underwent inquest proceedings
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga del Norte.

The Provincial Prosecutor, Gabino S. Saavedra II, prepared and signed Informations against
them charging serious offenses including Murder, Attempted Murder (two counts), Illegal
Possession of Firearms, and Illegal Possession of Explosives.

On the same day, an Extremely Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Preliminary Investigation,
Suspension, and Bail was also filed by Alson Chan and his team before RTC-Branch 28.

In Tomarong’s Comment dated January 16, 2020, respondent averred that although May 5,
2016 (the day he issued the Order granting the application for bail) is a Muslim Holiday, his
action was authorized by Supreme Court Circular No. 95-96 dated December 5, 1996
directing the courts to maintain a skeletal force on Saturdays to act on
petitions/applications for bail and other urgent matters. Respondent relied on Section 6
of Supreme Court Circular No. 95-96 which he quoted in this wise:

Sec. 6. - Duty during weekends and holidays. All Executive Judges whether in
single sala courts or multiple sala stations shall assign, by rotation, Metropolitan Trial
Judges, Municipal Trial Judges and (sic) Municipal Circuit Trial Judges within their
respective territorial areas to be on duty on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
assisted by a skeletal force, also on rotation, primarily to act on petitions for bail and
other urgent matters.

On Saturday afternoons, Sundays and non-working holidays any Judge may act on
bailable offenses conformably with the provisions of Section 7 Rule 112 of the Rules
of Court.38
Respondent stressed that he granted the application for bail because it was
meritorious. Alson Chan's wife and her lawyer "pleaded and argued" that the former was
arrested without warrant and detained to prevent him from pursuing his election campaign.
Thus, he lost. Before fixing the bail, he "analyzed" that the crime charged was only homicide,
a bailable offense, and therefore conducting a hearing was not required.

Moreover, the complaint stemmed from his official act, and is judicial in nature. Such being
the case, no civil, criminal or administrative liability was incurred by respondent.

Issue
Whether Judge Tomarong erred in granting bail to the accused.

Ruling
Yes. After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds respondent administratively liable
for (2) counts of Gross Ignorance of the Law and two (2) counts of Gross Misconduct, all
arising from two separate acts.

In the present case, Alson Chan and his campaign volunteers were charged in one of the
Informations, not with Homicide (which is punishable by reclusion temporal), but with
Murder, among others. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659, provides that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.

Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution provides in part that "[a]ll persons, except those charged
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as provided by
law."

Under Section 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, "no person charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution."

In other words, bail is a matter of discretion when a person is charged with a capital offense
or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the Judge's
determination of the requisite evidence as to whether the evidence of guilt of the
person in custody of the law is strong can only be reached after due hearing.

Thus, under Section 8, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, "[a]t the hearing of an application
for bail filed by a person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing
that evidence of guilt is strong."

Necessarily, under Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, in applications for bail filed
by a person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, "the court must give reasonable notice of the
hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his recommendation."
Equally important, the Court in Villanneva v. Judge Buaya discussed that "[u]nder the
present Rules of Court, xxx, notice and hearing are required whether bail is a matter of right
or discretion." The Court explained that "whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, a
hearing for a petition for bail is required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set
forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail." The Court
emphasized that "[i]t has repeatedly held in past cases that even if the prosecution fails to
adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an accused, the court may
still require the prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain, not only the
strength of the State's evidence, but also the adequacy of the amount of bail."

In sum, the duties of a judge in resolving bail applications, as reiterated by the Court in
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Flor, Jr., are as follows:

1.​ In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor
of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation;
2.​ Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for
bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to
show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion;
3.​ Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of
evidence of the prosecution;
4.​ If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
approval of the bail bond x x x; otherwise petition should be denied. (IMPORTANT
MEMO!!)

Here, respondent failed to notify the Provincial Prosecutor of the bail application and
failed to conduct a hearing on Alson Chan's bail application in Misc. Sp. Proc. No.
MSP-328. Admittedly, there was not a single Information filed against Alson Chan at
the time that he filed his bail application.

However, the absence of any Information on May 5, 2016 charging Alson Chan with a
non-bailable offense did not excuse respondent from the requirement of giving notice
to the prosecutor and the conduct of a hearing on Alson Chan's bail application.
Notably, Alson Chan stated in his bail application that while no Information has been filed at
the time of his detention on May 5, 2016, the Information will be filed by the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga del Norte anytime on May 6, 2016.70 Having
knowledge of this circumstance, respondent should have exercised prudence by, at the very
least, giving the prosecutor the opportunity to submit his recommendation on Alson Chan's
bail application.

Evidently, respondent acted with haste when it granted Alson Chan's bail application on the
same day that the bail application was filed on May 5, 2016.

Even more, respondent should have exercised caution in acting on the bail application
especially considering that he was aware that the cause of Alson Chan's detention is his
alleged involvement in the commission of a crime involving the killing of a person.
Respondent's awareness of such circumstance is made evident by his defense in his
Comment that before fixing the bail, he "analyzed" that the crime charged was only
homicide, a bailable offense, and therefore conducting a hearing was not required.

Furthermore, considering that Alson Chan was subsequently charged with Murder, among
other offenses, a bail hearing became all the more necessary in order to determine whether
the evidence of guilt against Alson Chan was strong. It must be emphasized that
respondent's appreciation that the crime committed by Alson Chan was only
Homicide cannot do away with the requirement of conducting a hearing. This is
considering the clear import of Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court that the
conduct of a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong
against a person in custody of the law is dependent on the gravity of the offense charged.

Here, respondent's failure to take cognizance of these basic rules when he granted Alson
Chan's bail application constitutes Gross Ignorance of the Law for which he should be
administratively liable.

Equally important, respondent's failure to notify the prosecutor of the bail application and to
conduct a hearing on Alson Chan's bail application showed his flagrant disregard of the law,
jurisprudence and rules of procedure governing applications for bail. Thus, the Court finds
respondent administratively liable for Gross Misconduct.

Essay Answer:

Yes, the granting of bail is improper.

Under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, bail is a matter of discretion when the crime, before
conviction by the RTC, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death,
when the evidence of guilt is not strong.

Under the same Rule, it also provides the requirement of a hearing for bail applications,
regardless whether bail is a matter of right or discretion. In hearings for bail applications, it is
the judge’s duty to: (1) notify the prosecutor of the hearing for bail application; (2) conduct a
hearing regardless if the prosecutor presents evidence to show that the guilt of the accused
is strong; (3) decide whether the guilt is strong based on the evidence presented to him; and
(4) discharge the accused upon approval of the bail if the guilt is not strong, or deny the
petition for bail application.

In this case, there was an irregularity in the process of granting bail by Judge Tomarong.
Given that the offense in this case is punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail in this case is a
matter of discretion, and that a hearing for bail application is indispensable before bail could
be adjudged and granted. Judge Tomarong, however, failed to conduct a hearing for bail
application, which violates the bail application process. It was an error on Judge Tomarong’s
part to rule that the evidence of Chan’s guilt is not strong because the prosecution was not
given an opportunity to present their evidence during a hearing. Thus, Judge Tomarong is
guilty for violating the right to bail.