- Information
- AI Chat
2Comia v Antona - Righ to Bail
Consti 1 (CONS 001)
Arellano University
Recommended for you
Preview text
Comia v Antona
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from a sworn affidavit complaint filed by Luzviminda Comia, wife of deceased Numeriano Comia. CA Justice Guerrero summarized the complaints as: (1) ignorance of the law; (2) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Court; and (3) deliberately violating existing doctrines and jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court.
The case for murder for the death of Numeriano Comia was raffled to the court presided by Judge Antona. He issued Warrants of Arrests against accused Dante Fajardo, Filipina Fajardo-Arce, and Pio Arce. Counsels for accused filed a Motion to Defer Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest. Upon their MR, Judge Antona suspended the Warrants of Arrest.
While still at large, Atty. Dimayacyac Sr. filed a Petition for the Grant of Bail to accused Dante and Filipina with Supplemental Reduction of Bail for Pio. Judge Antona directed that the petition be made part of the records of the case and thereafter, issued an order tentatively setting the hearing of the petition for bail. During the hearing for bail, the prosecutors presented that the Warrants of Arrest was served by the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in QC. Prosecutor continued that a commitment order be issued for the confinement of the accused at the Batangas City Jail. Judge Antona, however, remarked that the 3 accused voluntarily surrendered and the hearing is set specifically for bail and no other. The prosecutor maintained that the 3 accused were still not committed in the proper agency. When bail proceedings were terminated, the 3 accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, Judge Antona granted bail in the amount of P200k each for Dante and Filipina, and P100K for Pio.
ISSUE: WON the Judge committed grave ignorance of the law
RULING
A thorough perusal of the records and evidence adduced by the complainant lend credible substantiation to the charge of gross ignorance
of the law on the part of respondent judge. Without doubt, the rules and principles relating to bail transgressed by respondent judge are to say the least basic that unfamiliarity therewith entails a finding of administrative liability and necessitates the imposition of the proper penalty.
Likewise, jurisprudence on the matter is crystalline. Bereft of any ambiguity of language, this Court, articulated the principle in this jurisdiction that since bail is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, the same cannot be authorized or posted before custody of said accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
Where admission to bail is a matter of discretion, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed against in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong.
Under the present circumstances, respondent Judge Antona, fully cognizant that the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused considering that the latter were at large, still entertained the application for bail by setting a date of hearing therefor, albeit tentatively, and conditioned upon the voluntary surrender of the accused. In doing so, respondent judge indubitably violated settled jurisprudential doctrines regarding the purpose of bail which is to secure the temporary liberty of persons under the custody of the law, or otherwise deprived of freedom.
The records reveal that at the time the application for bail was filed, the accused were, in fact, in the enjoyment of their liberty, having evaded the long arm of the law despite the existence of standing warrants for their arrest issued by no less than respondent Judge Antona himself.
Notes:
Sec. 8 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is explicit:
Sec. 8. Burden of Proof in Bail Application. At the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed by any 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. The evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify.
It is self-evident that a court cannot authorize provisional liberty to one who is then actually in the enjoyment of his liberty; it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free.
The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty
Discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation of the evidence submitted by the prosecution.
RULING
Since bail is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, it can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
Likewise, in granting and reducing bail, Judge Antona failed to recite summary of evidence for the prosecution. In this case, proof is extant that in the bail hearings, the prosecution was not afforded adequate opportunity within a reasonable time to present evidence within its grasp to substantiate the degree and gravity of guilt of the accused, for purposes of resolving bail petition.
When the grant of bail is discretionary, as in this case, the issue of whether or not an accused should be admitted to bail lies on the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence as to their guilt, without prejudice to the right of the defense to cross-examine.
Notes:
The court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of evidence for the prosecution, otherwise the order may be invalidated because the summary of evidence for the prosecution, which contains the judge’s evaluation of evidence, may be considered as an aspect of due process both for the prosecution and defense.
2Comia v Antona - Righ to Bail
Course: Consti 1 (CONS 001)
University: Arellano University
