Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    De La Camara V Enage

    Uploaded by

    gel94
    Ricardo de la Camara was arrested for his alleged involvement in a killing of 14 laborers. He applied for bail which was granted by Judge Manuel Enage but set the bail bond at an excessive P1,195,200. The Secretary of Justice said this amount was too high and suggested P40,000 instead. De la Camara appealed but the judge refused to lower the amount. The Supreme Court found the bail set was excessive and violated the constitution. They determined bail should not have exceeded P50,000 for one charge and P25,000 for the other. However, since de la Camara had escaped custody, the case was dismissed as moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De La Camara V Enage

    Uploaded by

    gel94
    1K views1 page
    Ricardo de la Camara was arrested for his alleged involvement in a killing of 14 laborers. He applied for bail which was granted by Judge Manuel Enage but set the bail bond at an excessive P1,195,200. The Secretary of Justice said this amount was too high and suggested P40,000 instead. De la Camara appealed but the judge refused to lower the amount. The Supreme Court found the bail set was excessive and violated the constitution. They determined bail should not have exceeded P50,000 for one charge and P25,000 for the other. However, since de la Camara had escaped custody, the case was dismissed as moot.

    Original Description:

    Consti 2

    Original Title

    de La Camara v Enage

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ricardo de la Camara was arrested for his alleged involvement in a killing of 14 laborers. He applied for bail which was granted by Judge Manuel Enage but set the bail bond at an excessive P1,195,200. The Secretary of Justice said this amount was too high and suggested P40,000 instead. De la Camara appealed but the judge refused to lower the amount. The Supreme Court found the bail set was excessive and violated the constitution. They determined bail should not have exceeded P50,000 for one charge and P25,000 for the other. However, since de la Camara had escaped custody, the case was dismissed as moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    De La Camara V Enage

    Uploaded by

    gel94
    Ricardo de la Camara was arrested for his alleged involvement in a killing of 14 laborers. He applied for bail which was granted by Judge Manuel Enage but set the bail bond at an excessive P1,195,200. The Secretary of Justice said this amount was too high and suggested P40,000 instead. De la Camara appealed but the judge refused to lower the amount. The Supreme Court found the bail set was excessive and violated the constitution. They determined bail should not have exceeded P50,000 for one charge and P25,000 for the other. However, since de la Camara had escaped custody, the case was dismissed as moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DE LA CAMARA v ENAGE

    G.R. Nos. L-32951-2 September 17, 1971

    FACTS: Ricardo de la Camara, Municipal Mayor of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental was


    arrested and detained at the Provincial Jail of Agusan, for his alleged participation in the
    killing of 14 and the wounding of 12 other laborers of the Tirador Logging Co., at Agusan del
    Sur. The Provincial Fiscal of Agusan filed with the CFI a case for multiple frustrated murder
    and another for multiple murder against de la Camara, his co-accused Tagunan and Galgo.
    De la Camara filed an application for bail to the lower court.
    Presiding Judge Manuel Enage started the trial of de la Camara, the prosecution resting its
    case on 10 July 1969. On 10 August 1970, the judge issued an order granting de la
    Camara's application for bail and fixed the bail bond at the excessive amount of
    P1,195,200.00, the sum of P840,000.00 for the information charging multiple murder and
    P355,200.00 for the offense of multiple frustrated murder. Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad
    Santos, upon being informed of such order, sent a telegram to the Judge stating that the
    bond required "is excessive" and suggesting that a P40,000.00 bond, either in cash or
    property, would be reasonable.
    De la Camara filed motion for reconsideration to reduce the amount. The Judge however
    remained adamant. De la Camara escaped from the provincial jail on April 28, 1971.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the amount of bail ordered by Enage is excessive.

    HELD: Yes. Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a
    sum that is excessive. Fixing the amount of P1,195,200.00 as the bail that should be posted
    by petitioner is clearly violative of the constitutional provision. Under the circumstances,
    there being only two offenses charged, the amount required as bail could not possibly
    exceed P50,000.00 for the information for murder and P25,000.00 for the other information
    for frustrated murder.
    There is an attempt on the part of respondent Judge to justify what, on its face, appears to
    be indefensible. The guidelines in the fixing of bail was summarized as follows: (1) ability of
    the accused to give bail; (2) nature of the offense; (3) penalty for the offense charged; (4)
    character and reputation of the accused; (5) health of the accused; (6) character and
    strength of the evidence; (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial; (8) forfeiture of
    other bonds; (9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (10) if
    the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases. Respondent Judge,
    however, did ignore this decisive consideration.
    With petitioner, however, having escaped from the provincial jail, no ruling can be had on
    his plea to nullify the above order. Wherefore, this case is dismissed for being moot and
    academic.

    You might also like