[G.R. No. 81389. February 21, 1989.

]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petto!er, "#. HON. REN$TO %. &$%'&$O, Pre#(!)
*u()e o+ t,e Re)o!a- Tra- %ourt o+ %ebu, .ra!/, 0I1, a!( RE2 %HRISTOPHER P$%LI.$R,
a!( NERO &ES$3P$R$&O a-a# TOTO &ES$3P$R$&O a-a# 4$L&$S, re#po!(e!t#.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Bernardito A. Florido for private respondents.
S2LL$.'S
1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW !IG"T OF ACCUS#$ TO BAIL %!OS#CUTION $#%!I&#$ OF
%!OC#$U!AL $U# %!OC#SS ALL G!ANT#$ TO ACCUS#$ WIT"OUT "#A!ING. ' The
respondent co(rt acted irre)(larl* in )rantin) +ail in a ,(rder case -itho(t an* hearin) on the ,otion
as.in) for it/ -itho(t +otherin) to as. the prosec(tion for its confor,it* or co,,ent/ and/ as it t(rned
o(t later/ over its stron) o+0ections. The co(rt )ranted +ail on the sole +asis of the co,plaint and the
affidavits of three police,en/ not one of -ho, apparentl* -itnessed the .illin). Whatever the co(rt
possessed at the ti,e it iss(ed the 1(estioned r(lin) -as intended onl* for pri,a facie deter,inin)
-hether or not there is s(fficient )ro(nd to en)ender a -ell2fo(nded +elief that the cri,e -as
co,,itted and pinpointin) the persons -ho pro+a+l* co,,itted it. Whether or not the evidence of
)(ilt is stron) for each individ(al acc(sed still has to +e esta+lished (nless the prosec(tion s(+,its the
iss(e on -hatever it has alread* presented. To appreciate the stren)th or -ea.ness of the evidence of
)(ilt/ the prosec(tion ,(st +e cons(lted or heard. It is e1(all* entitled as the acc(sed to d(e process.
3.!#4#$IAL LAW C!I4INAL %!OC#$U!# FI5ING OF BAILBON$ GUI$#LIN#S
T"#!#FO!. ' Certain )(idelines in the fi6in) of a +ail+ond call for the presentation of evidence and
reasona+le opport(nit* for the prosec(tion to ref(te it. A,on) the, are the nat(re and circ(,stances of
the cri,e/ character and rep(tation of the acc(sed/ the -ei)ht of the evidence a)ainst hi,/ the
pro+a+ilit* of the acc(sed appearin) at the trial/ -hether or not the acc(sed is a f()itive fro, 0(stice/
and -hether or not the acc(sed is (nder +ond in other cases. 7Section 8/ !(le 199/ !(les of Co(rt: It is
hi)hl* do(+tf(l if the trial co(rt can appreciate these )(idelines in an e62parte deter,ination -here the
Fiscal is neither present nor heard.
;.I$. I$. BAIL NOT A 4ATT#! OF !IG"T "#A!ING ON 4OTION FO! BAIL/
IN$IS%#NSABL#. ' Bail is not a ,atter of ri)ht as re)ards persons char)ed -ith offenses p(nisha+le
+* recl(sion perpet(a -hen the evidence of )(ilt is stron). Th(s/ Sec. </ Art. 119 of the !(les of
Cri,inal %roced(re re1(ires a hearin) +efore resolvin) a ,otion for +ail +* persons char)ed -ith
offenses p(nisha+le +* recl(sion perpet(a -here the prosec(tion ,a* dischar)e its +(rden of sho-in)
that the evidence of )(ilt is stron). The case at +ar/ -hich is ,(rder/ is p(nisha+le +* recl(sion
perpet(a.
9. I$. S%#CIAL CI&IL ACTION C#!TIO!A!I AN$ %!O"IBITION LI# IN CAS# AT BA!
4OTION FO! !#CONSI$#!ATION 4A= B# $IS%#NS#$ WIT" IN S%#CIAL
CI!CU4STANC#S. ' The )eneral r(le is that a ,otion for reconsideration sho(ld first +e availed of
+efore a petition for certiorari and prohi+ition is filed. 7Ce+( Instit(te of Technolo)* >CIT? v. Ople/ 1<8
SC!A 83@ >1@AB?: "o-ever/ this r(le does not appl* -hen special circ(,stances -arrant i,,ediate or
,ore direct action. A ,otion for reconsideration ,a* +e dispensed -ith in cases li.e this -ere
e6ec(tion has +een ordered and the need for relief is e6tre,el* (r)ent 7%hil. British Ass(rance Co. Inc.
v. Inter,ediate Appellate Co(rt/ 1<C SC!A <3C >1@A@?:. In the case at +ar/ the petitioner is left -ith no
plain/ speed*/ and ade1(ate re,ed* in the ordinar* co(rse of la- considerin) that the respondent co(rt
insists on the contin(ation of the hearin) of the cri,inal case even -hile the acc(sed is free to roa,
aro(nd. 4oreover/ there is an alle)ation that the acc(sed is harassin)/ threatenin) and coercin)
-itnesses -ho are no- afraid to testif*. 7pp. AB2AA/ !ollo:.
<.I$. A4#N$4#NT O! C"ANGING OF INFO!4ATION $OUBL# D#O%A!$= WILL NOT
ATTAC" W"#!# ACCUS#$ "A$ NOT =#T %L#A$#$ GUILT=. ' The defense contends that the
D(d)e did not co,,it an* error +eca(se act(all* the co,plaint in the 4(nicipal Circ(it Trial Co(rt is
for ho,icide onl* 7Anne6 A. p. 8C/ !ollo:/ and the reco,,ended Infor,ation -as also for ho,icide
7Anne6 B/ p. 81/ !ollo:. We note/ ho-ever/ that -hen the sa,e -as filed -ith the !e)ional Trial Co(rt/
it -as alread* an infor,ation for ,(rder. The a,end,ent or chan)in) of an infor,ation prior to the
plea of the acc(sed is allo-ed there +ein) no pre0(dice to hi,. Th(s/ in the case of Gaspar v.
Sandi)an+a*an 7199 SC!A 91< >1@A8?:/ this Co(rt held that/ Eno act(al do(+le 0eopard* e6ists -here
the petitioner had not *et pleaded )(ilt* to the offense.
& E % I S I O N
GUTI#!!#F/ D!./ D pG
The 1(estion presented for resol(tion in this petition for certiorari and prohi+ition is -hether or
not the prosec(tion -as deprived of proced(ral d(e process on acco(nt of the )rant of +ail to the
acc(sed -itho(t an* hearin) on the ,otion for +ail.
The facts have +een s(,,ariHed as follo-s
E1.On A()(st 11/ 1@AB/ an Infor,ation for 4(rder -ith the 1(alif*in) circ(,stances of
treacher* and evident pre,editation -as filed +efore the !e)ional Trial Co(rt of Ce+(/ Branch 5I&/
presided +* respondent D(d)e !enato C. $ac(dao/ a)ainst acc(sed !e* Christopher %acli+ar and Nero
$esa,parado for the death of Cesarlito Nolasco. The case -as doc.eted as Cri,inal Case No. CBU2
1198;. Upon arrai)n,ent/ acc(sed !e* Christopher %acli+ar entered a plea of Inot )(ilt*I to the offense
char)ed.
E3.On Septe,+er 1A/ 1@AB/ acc(sed !e* Christopher %acli+ar filed a ,otion for +ail/ f(rnishin)
the %rovincial Fiscal of Ce+( -ith a cop* thereof.
E;.On Septe,+er 3@/ 1@AB/ and -itho(t cond(ctin) a hearin) in the application for +ail/
respondent D(d)e s(,,aril* iss(ed the follo-in) OrderG
O!$#!
EConsiderin) the ,otion for +ail and the opposition thereto/ and/ on the +asis of the co,plaint
at +ar and the s-orn state,ent of %atrol,an #lpidio $es1(itado/ Tadeo A+ello and !o,eo TorriHo/ all
of the Inte)rated National %olice/ Banta*an 7Ce+(: %olice Station/ -hich constit(te the essential
evidence 7so far: of the prosec(tion in this case/ this Co(rt here+* resolves to )rant the ,otion for +ail
presented +* Att*. Bernardito A. Florido/ and to this end here+* fi6es the +ail+ond for the acc(sed !e*
Christopher %acli+ar at %<C/CCC.CC.
ESO O!$#!#$
E9. Fro, the fore)oin) Order/ private prosec(tor Ale6 !. 4onteclar filed a ,otion for
reconsideration alle)in) that ET"# G!ANTING OF BAIL TO T"# ACCUS#$ WIT"OUT A
"#A!ING IS &IOLATI&# OF %!OC#$U!AL $U# %!OC#SS/ "#NC#/ NULL AN$ &OI$I and
th(s pra*in)/ as follo-sG
W"#!#FO!#/ in the li)ht of the fore)oin)/ it is respectf(ll* pra*ed of this "onora+le Co(rt
toG
EI1. !econsider its order dated 3@th Septe,+er 1@AB )rantin) +ail to the acc(sed !e*
Christopher %acli+ar and set it aside for +ein) n(ll and void
EI3.To order the i,,ediate hearin) of the 4otion to Bail to deter,ine -hether the evidence for
the prosec(tion -o(ld -arrant the denial of +ail
EI;.To reco,,it the acc(sed to 0ail 7C%$!C: i,,ediatel* (ntil s(ch ti,e the "onora+le Co(rt
shall have resolved the 4otion to Bail.I
E<.Actin) on the ,otion for reconsideration and the opposition thereto filed +* acc(sed !e*
Christopher %acli+ar/ respondent 0(d)e iss(ed on Nove,+er 3C/ 1@AB the follo-in) orderG
EIO!$#!
EIThe Co(rt here+* resolves to hold in a+e*ance its resol(tion on the %rosec(tionIs ,otion for
reconsideration of the Co(rtIs order dated Septe,+er 3@/ 1@AB )rantin) +ail to the acc(sed/ pendin) the
presentation +* the %rosec(tion of evidence/ -hich it pro,ised to present/ in s(pport of its proposition
that the evidence of )(ilt a)ainst the acc(sed in this case is stron)/ and that therefore the acc(sed
sho(ld not have +een ad,itted to +ail. Unless and (ntil the prosec(tion add(ces the re1(isite evidence/
the Co(rt sees no reason to reconsider its order of Septe,+er 3@/ 1@AB -hich -as predicated (pon the
post(late that the %rosec(tion evidence th(s far attached to the records does not ,a.e o(t a ver* stron)
case for ,(rder/ as this evidence consists si,pl* of the s-orn state,ent of %at. $es1(itado/ Tadeo
A+ello and !o,eo TorriHo/ of the IN%/ Banta*an/ Ce+(/ none of -ho,/ +* their o-n acco(nt/
-itnesses 7sic: the sla*in) of the deceased Lito Nolasco +* the acc(sed !e* Christopher %acli+ar.
EIThe Co(rt here+* )ives the prosec(tion five 7<: da*s fro, receipt of this order -ithin -hich to
s(+,it a pleadin) or ,otion for reconsideration of the r(lin) of the Co(rt.
EIIn the ,eanti,e reset the contin(ation of the hearin) of this case on $ece,+er 18/ 1@AB at
3G;C %.4. Fiscal Napoleon Al+(ro/ Att*s. Ale6 4onteclar and Bernardito Florido/ as -ell as Att*.
A,ado Olis are all notified of this order in open co(rt. The acc(sed is si,ilarl* notified. Notif* the
+onds,an of the acc(sed.
EISO O!$#!#$.IE 7pp. @<2@A/ !ollo:.
The petitioner no- advances the follo-in) iss(eG that E!espondent D(d)e acted -itho(t
0(risdiction and -ith )rave a+(se of discretion in ref(sin) to reco,,it the acc(sed !e* Christopher
%acli+ar to 0ail d(rin) the pendenc* of the hearin) of the ,otion to +ail.E 7p. 8/ %etition:.
Before resolvin) this iss(e/ -e ,(st stress that a private prosec(tor in a cri,inal case has no
a(thorit* to act for the %eople of the %hilippines +efore this Co(rt. It is the Govern,entIs co(nsel/ the
Solicitor General -ho appears , cri,inal cases or the incidents +efore the S(pre,e Co(rt. At the ver*
least/ the %rovincial Fiscal hi,self/ -ith the confor,it* of the Solicitor General/ sho(ld have raised the
iss(e +efore (s/ instead of the private prosec(tor -ith the confor,it* of one of the Assistant %rovincial
Fiscals of Ce+(. In the interest of a speed* deter,ination of the case/ ho-ever/ and considerin) the
stand ta.en +* the Office of the Solicitor General -ho, -e as.ed to co,,ent/ -e have decided to
resolve this petition on its ,erits/ -ith a -arnin) to the private prosec(tor and the Assistant %rovincial
Fiscal to follo- the correct proced(re in the f(t(re.
The respondent co(rt acted irre)(larl* in )rantin) +ail in a ,(rder case -itho(t an* hearin) on
the ,otion as.in) for it/ -itho(t +otherin) to as. the prosec(tion for its confor,it* or co,,ent/ and/
as it t(rned o(t later/ over its stron) o+0ections. The co(rt )ranted +ail on the sole +asis of the co,plaint
and the affidavits of three police,en/ not one of -ho, apparentl* -itnessed the .illin). Whatever the
co(rt possessed at the ti,e it iss(ed the 1(estioned r(lin) -as intended onl* for pri,a facie
deter,inin) -hether or not there is s(fficient )ro(nd to en)ender a -ell2fo(nded +elief that the cri,e
-as co,,itted and pinpointin) the persons -ho pro+a+l* co,,itted it. Whether or not the evidence of
)(ilt is stron) for each individ(al acc(sed still has to +e esta+lished (nless the prosec(tion s(+,its the
iss(e on -hatever it has alread* presented. To appreciate the stren)th or -ea.ness of the evidence of
)(ilt/ the prosec(tion ,(st +e cons(lted or heard. It is e1(all* entitled as the acc(sed to d(e process.
Th(s/ this Co(rt/ in %eople v. San $ie)o 738 SC!A <33 >1@8A?:/ heldG
EThe 1(estion presented +efore (s is/ -hether the prosec(tion -as deprived of proced(ral d(e
process. The ans-er is in the affir,ative. We are of the considered opinion that -hether the ,otion for
+ail of a defendant -ho is in c(stod* for a capital offense +e resolved in a s(,,ar* proceedin) or in
the co(rse of a re)(lar trial the prosec(tion ,(st +e )iven an opport(nit* to present/ -ithin a
reasona+le ti,e/ all the evidence that it ,a* desire to introd(ce +efore the co(rt sho(ld resolve the
,otion for +ail. If/ as in the cri,inal case involved in the instant special civil action/ the prosec(tion
sho(ld +e denied s(ch an opport(nit*/ there -o(ld +e a violation of proced(ral d(e process/ and the
order of the co(rt )rantin) +ail sho(ld +e considered void on that )ro(nd. The orders co,plained of
dated Octo+er B/ @ and 13/ 1@8A/ havin) +een iss(ed in violation of proced(ral d(e process/ ,(st +e
considered n(ll and void.
EThe co(rtIs discretion to )rant +ail in capital offenses ,(st +e e6ercised in the li)ht of a
s(,,ar* of the evidence presented +* the prosec(tion other-ise/ it -o(ld +e (ncontrolled and ,i)ht
+e capricio(s or -hi,sical. "ence/ the co(rtIs order )rantin) or ref(sin) +ail ,(st contain a s(,,ar*
of the evidence for the prosec(tion follo-ed +* its concl(sion -hether of not the evidence of )(ilt is
stron). The orders of Octo+er B/ @ and 13/ 1@8A/ )rantin) +ail to the five defendants are defective in
for, and s(+stance +eca(se the* do not contain a s(,,ar* of the evidence presented +* the
prosec(tion. The* onl* contain the co(rtIs concl(sion that the evidence of )(ilt is not stron). Bein) th(s
defective in for, and s(+stance/ the orders co,plained of cannot/ also on this )ro(nd/ +e allo-ed to
stand.E 7at p. <39 e,phasis s(pplied:
Certain )(idelines in the fi6in) of a +ail+ond call for the presentation of evidence and
reasona+le opport(nit* for the prosec(tion to ref(te it. A,on) the, are the nat(re and circ(,stances of
the cri,e/ character and rep(tation of the acc(sed/ the -ei)ht of the evidence a)ainst hi,/ the
pro+a+ilit* of the acc(sed appearin) at the trial/ -hether or not the acc(sed is a f()itive fro, 0(stice/
and -hether or not the acc(sed is (nder +ond in other cases. 7Section 8/ !(le 119/ !(les of Co(rt: It is
hi)hl* do(+tf(l if the trial co(rt can appreciate these )(idelines in an e62parte deter,ination -here the
Fiscal is neither present nor heard.
The effort of the co(rt to re,ed* the sit(ation +* cond(ctin) the re1(ired hearin) after orderin)
the release of the acc(sed ,a* +e a face2savin) device for the D(d)e +(t it cannot serve the p(rpose of
validatin) the void order )rantin) +ail and sta,pin) an i,pri,at(r of approval on a clearl* irre)(lar
proced(re.
The defense co(nsel insists that the acc(sed sho(ld +e entitled to +ail considerin) the a+olition
of the death penalt* in the 1@A8 Constit(tion. "e advances the ar)(,ent that d(e to the a+olition of the
death penalt*/ ,(rder is no lon)er a capital offense +ein) no lon)er p(nisha+le -ith death. This is
erroneo(s +eca(se altho()h the Constit(tion states that the death penalt* ,a* not +e i,posed (nless a
la- orders its i,position for heino(s cri,es 7Constit(tion/ Art. II/ Section 1@ >1?:/ it does not follo-
that all persons acc(sed of an* cri,e -hatsoever no- have an a+sol(te ri)ht to +ail. In Art. III/ Sec. 1;
of the Constit(tion/ Ecapital offensesE is replaced +* the phrase Eoffenses p(nisha+le +* recl(sion
perpet(a.E
Bail is not a ,atter of ri)ht as re)ards persons char)ed -ith offenses p(nisha+le +* recl(sion
perpet(a -hen the evidence of )(ilt is stron). Th(s/ Sec. </ Art. 119 of the !(les of Cri,inal %roced(re
re1(ires a hearin) +efore resolvin) a ,otion for +ail +* persons char)ed -ith offenses p(nisha+le +*
recl(sion perpet(a -here the prosec(tion ,a* dischar)e its +(rden of sho-in) that the evidence of
)(ilt is stron). The case at +ar/ -hich is ,(rder/ is p(nisha+le +* recl(sion perpet(a.
In its co,,ent/ the defense interposes an o+0ection to the petition on the )ro(nd that it is pre,at(re
and therefore/ sho(ld +e dis,issed. It contends that certiorari -ill not lie (nless the inferior co(rt has/
thro()h a ,otion for reconsideration/ the opport(nit* to correct the errors i,p(ted to it. The )eneral
r(le is that a ,otion for reconsideration sho(ld first +e availed of +efore a petition for certiorari and
prohi+ition is filed. 7Ce+( Instit(te of Technolo)* >CIT? v. Ople/ 1<8 SC!A 83@ >1@AB?: "o-ever/ this
r(le does not appl* -hen special circ(,stances -arrant i,,ediate or ,ore direct action. A ,otion for
reconsideration ,a* +e dispensed -ith in cases li.e this -ere e6ec(tion has +een ordered and the need
for relief is e6tre,el* (r)ent 7%hil. British Ass(rance Co. Inc. v. Inter,ediate Appellate Co(rt/ 1<C
SC!A <3C >1@A@?:. In the case at +ar/ the petitioner is left -ith no plain/ speed*/ and ade1(ate re,ed*
in the ordinar* co(rse of la- considerin) that the respondent co(rt insists on the contin(ation of the
hearin) of the cri,inal case even -hile the acc(sed is free to roa, aro(nd. 4oreover/ there is an
alle)ation that the acc(sed is harassin)/ threatenin) and coercin) -itnesses -ho are no- afraid to
testif*. 7pp. AB2AA/ !ollo:.
Finall*/ the defense contends that the D(d)e did not co,,it an* error +eca(se act(all* the
co,plaint in the 4(nicipal Circ(it Trial Co(rt is for ho,icide onl* 7Anne6 A. p. 8C/ !ollo:/ and the
reco,,ended Infor,ation -as also for ho,icide 7Anne6 B/ p. 81/ !ollo:. We note/ ho-ever/ that -hen
the sa,e -as filed -ith the !e)ional Trial Co(rt/ it -as alread* an infor,ation for ,(rder. Le6Li+
The a,end,ent or chan)in) of an infor,ation prior to the plea of the acc(sed is allo-ed there
+ein) no pre0(dice to hi,. Th(s/ in the case of Gaspar v. Sandi)an+a*an 7199 SC!A 91< >1@A8?:/ this
Co(rt held that/ Eno act(al do(+le 0eopard* e6ists -here the petitioner had not *et pleaded )(ilt* to the
offense.
W"#!#FO!#/ the petition is here+* G!ANT#$. The order )rantin) +ail is S#T ASI$# and
the acc(sed is ordered reco,,itted to 0ail pendin) the hearin) on the +ail application.
SO O!$#!#$.
Fernan/ C.D./ Feliciano/ Bidin and CortJs/ DD./ conc(r.