Sunday, July 28, 2013

A.M. No. MTJ-97-1139. October 16, 1997 ROBERTO ESPIRITU, v. JUDGE EDUARDO JOVELLANOS DIGEST MENDOZA, J.:



FACTS:
Roberto Espiritu, as complainant, alleged that at around 7:30 in the evening of July 16, 1994, while he was with a group which included Eulogio Pabunan, Arnel Guerra, Januario Peregrino, and Marcelino Bautista, Weny Dumlao approached him and fired at him three times, as a result of which complainant was wounded; that complainant was able to run away; and that Dumlao wanted to kill complainant because the latter had filed a case against Dumlao’s brother, Victor, for the murder of complainant’s son Rolly.
A criminal complaint for frustrated murder was filed against Dumlao to the respondent Judge’s court. After a preliminary investigation was conducted by the judge, he ordered the arrest of the accused and fixed the bail at P20,000.00. A few days later, the Judge reduced the bail at P10,000.00, stating the Dumlao’s father had asked for the reduction. Thereafter, he ordered the release of Dumlao and dismissed the case due to another pending case filed by Dumlao against Espiritu with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion when he reduced the bail of Dumlao.

HELD:
At the time the Honorable Judge acted on the “request” for reduction of bail, the accused was not under detention as he was not arrested nor had he voluntarily surrendered as borne by the records.  Accordingly, the Court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused, so the Honorable Judge cannot act on such “request” for reduction of bail even if interceded by the father of the accused;
The amount at which the bail was reduced:  P10,000.00 is not commensurate with the gravity of the crime charged, an evident manifestation of the Judge’s injudiciousness in the exercise of his authority and discretion.  The bail bond guide of 1981 provides for the amount P12,500.00;
Apparently, therefore, when Dumlao applied for bail on September 7, 1994 to respondent judge, Dumlao was not in custody.  But although then not in legal custody, Dumlao subsequently submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court when on September 7, 1994 he personally asked respondent judge to admit him to bail and reduce its amount. Before the arrest warrant could be served on him, he filed through counsel a motion for admission to bail which the trial court set for hearing on November 5, 1992 with notice to both public and private prosecutors.  As Paderanga was then confined at a hospital, his counsel manifested that they were submitting custody over Paderanga’s person to the chapter president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and asked that, for purposes of the hearing on his bail application, he be considered as being in the custody of the law.  On November 5, 1992, the trial court admitted Paderanga to bail in the amount of P200,000.00.  The next day, Paderanga in spite of his weak condition, managed to personally appear before the clerk of court of the trial court and posted bail.  He was arraigned and thereafter he attended the hearings. We held that the accused was in the constructive custody of the law when he moved for admission to bail through his lawyers (1) by filing the application for  bail with the trial court, (2) by furnishing true information of his actual whereabouts, and (3) by unequivocably recognizing the jurisdiction of said court.
            The reduction of Bail was although unjust because the bail for frustrated murder as stated in the 1981 bailbond guide is fixed between P120,000.00 and P140,000.00, the penalty being reclusion temporal in its minimum period. (12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months)

No comments:

Post a Comment