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