Posted By: Alaine Joyce on July 24, 2018
FACTS:
On March 2, 2000, while a Victory Liner bus was cruising along the National Highway of Dinalupihan, Bataan, it accidentally hit and fatally injured Marciana Bautista Morales. Marciana died the following day. VLI shouldered all the funeral and burial expenses. VLI and the heirs of the victim entered into an Agreement where the heirs executed a Release of Claim and an Affidavit of Desistance in favor of VLI and the driver Reino De la Cruz. However, two or Marciana's sons executed a Pinagsamang Salaysay against De la Cruz. On the strength of the document, a criminal complaint was filed with the MCTC of Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan.
On March 13, 2000, Judge Bellosillo ordered the immediate issuance of a warrant of arrest against De la Cruz and fixed his bail at P50, 000 to be posted in cash. He further directed the Chief of Police to immediately impound the bus involved in the accident, which could be released only upon the posting of a cash bond in the amount of P50, 000.
On June 23, 200, VLI filed a verified complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Bellosillo. The complaint claimed that Judge Bellosillo (a) is guilty of gross ignorance of the law in impounding its bus and requiring it to post a cash bond for the release of the bus; (b) gravely abused his authority when it revoked the surety bond of one of VLI's driver Edwin Serrano in Crim. Case No. 9373; and (c) knowingly rendered an unjust and oppressive order when he increased the bond to P350, 000 and required it to be posted in cash.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
On March 2, 2000, while a Victory Liner bus was cruising along the National Highway of Dinalupihan, Bataan, it accidentally hit and fatally injured Marciana Bautista Morales. Marciana died the following day. VLI shouldered all the funeral and burial expenses. VLI and the heirs of the victim entered into an Agreement where the heirs executed a Release of Claim and an Affidavit of Desistance in favor of VLI and the driver Reino De la Cruz. However, two or Marciana's sons executed a Pinagsamang Salaysay against De la Cruz. On the strength of the document, a criminal complaint was filed with the MCTC of Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan.
On March 13, 2000, Judge Bellosillo ordered the immediate issuance of a warrant of arrest against De la Cruz and fixed his bail at P50, 000 to be posted in cash. He further directed the Chief of Police to immediately impound the bus involved in the accident, which could be released only upon the posting of a cash bond in the amount of P50, 000.
On June 23, 200, VLI filed a verified complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Bellosillo. The complaint claimed that Judge Bellosillo (a) is guilty of gross ignorance of the law in impounding its bus and requiring it to post a cash bond for the release of the bus; (b) gravely abused his authority when it revoked the surety bond of one of VLI's driver Edwin Serrano in Crim. Case No. 9373; and (c) knowingly rendered an unjust and oppressive order when he increased the bond to P350, 000 and required it to be posted in cash.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the judge is administratively liable for imposing excessive cash bail bonds.
HELD:
Yes, Judge Bellosillo is administratively liable for imposing excessive cash bail bonds on accused Reino De la Cruz in Crim. Case No. 10512 and Edwin Serrano in Crim. Case No. 9373.
The Constitution guarantees to every person under legal custody the right to bail except those charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that in fixing the amount of bail, the judge must primarily consider the following factors: a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail; b)Nature and circumstances of the offense; c) Penalty for the offense charged; d) Character and reputation of the accused; e) Age and health of the accused; g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial; h) Forfeiture of the bonds; i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and j) The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.
The amount of bail should, therefore, be reasonable at all times. It should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required, but no higher than is reasonably calculated to serve this purpose. Excessive bail shall not be required. In implementing this mandate, the accused's financial capability should particularly be considered. What is reasonable to a wealthy person may not be so to a man charged with a like offense, where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive.
De la Cruz and Serrano were both charged with the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Although permanently employed as drivers of VLI, it could not be said that each was capable of posting a cash bail bond of P50, 000 and P350, 000, respectively. The bail fixed is all the more excessive because it was in the form of cash. While cash bail is authorized under our rules, the option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily belongs to the accused.
HELD:
Yes, Judge Bellosillo is administratively liable for imposing excessive cash bail bonds on accused Reino De la Cruz in Crim. Case No. 10512 and Edwin Serrano in Crim. Case No. 9373.
The Constitution guarantees to every person under legal custody the right to bail except those charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that in fixing the amount of bail, the judge must primarily consider the following factors: a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail; b)Nature and circumstances of the offense; c) Penalty for the offense charged; d) Character and reputation of the accused; e) Age and health of the accused; g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial; h) Forfeiture of the bonds; i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and j) The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.
The amount of bail should, therefore, be reasonable at all times. It should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required, but no higher than is reasonably calculated to serve this purpose. Excessive bail shall not be required. In implementing this mandate, the accused's financial capability should particularly be considered. What is reasonable to a wealthy person may not be so to a man charged with a like offense, where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive.
De la Cruz and Serrano were both charged with the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Although permanently employed as drivers of VLI, it could not be said that each was capable of posting a cash bail bond of P50, 000 and P350, 000, respectively. The bail fixed is all the more excessive because it was in the form of cash. While cash bail is authorized under our rules, the option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily belongs to the accused.
