Marcos Vs Cruz

[G.R. No. 46490. January 24, 1939.
MARIANO MARCOS, PIO MARCOS and QUIRINO LIZARDO, Petitioners, v. ROMAN

A. CRUZ, Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, Respondent.
FACTS: In their petition for certiorari and prohibition the petitioners pray that the order of the
respondent judge dated December 29, 1938, denying another motion filed by them to be admitted
to bail, be set aside, and by way of affirmative relief ask that they be set at liberty upon giving bail
in the amount to be fixed.
On December 7, 1938, the provincial fiscal of Laguna, who was assigned as such in Ilocos Norte,
filed the following information for the crime of murder with the aggravating circumstances of
nocturnity and the perpetration of the crime in the home of the deceased. The information was
submitted to the respondent judge who, after examining prosecution witnesses Calixto Aguinaldo
and Valentin Rubio, on that very day issued the warrant for the arrest of the accused, stating that
from the testimony of these witnesses it was evident that the crime charged had been committed
and that the accused had probably committed it. Being of the opinion that the crime charged was
penalized with a capital punishment, and that the accused were not entitled to bail, the court
likewise decreed that the accused remain in detention. At the investigation conducted by the
respondent judge, where Calixto Aguinaldo and Valentin Rubio testified, the accused were not
present, and the whole proceeding took place in their absence. On December 8, 1938, Mariano
Marcos moved to be admitted to bail. The motion was set for hearing that same afternoon, which
was orally opposed by the fiscal, and without either party adducing any evidence, the motion was
submitted. Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, and Quirino Lizardo on the 12th also moved to be
admitted to bail. This motion was set for hearing on the 20th of December, 1938, but at the request
of the accused, who wanted to file a supplementary motion, the hearing was postponed till the
following day. On December 21st, the four accused filed the supplementary motion, attaching
thereto their sworn statements marked A, B, C and D. Here as in the original motion the accused
urgently prayed that they be released on bail, and in their sworn statements Mariano Marcos,
Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo declared that the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo and
Valentin Rubio accusing them of murder was false, and that they were innocent. On December
21st these motions came up for hearing before the respondent judge, Fiscal Macadaeg appearing
for the prosecution, and Attorney Vicente J. Francisco for the defense. The latter asked that the
prosecution present its evidence to show that the accused fell within the exception of section 1,
paragraph 16, Article III of the Constitution, and section 63 of General Orders, No. 58, that is, that
they were accused of a capital offense, that the proof of guilt was evident and the presumption of
guilt strong. The fiscal refused to do so and contended that under the law the prosecution was not
bound to adduce such evidence, that the judge might take into account that adduced during the
investigation he had made, and that at any rate it was the defense that was bound to establish the
right of the accused to bail. The respondent judge sustained the fiscal and the hearing came to a
close without either party adducing any evidence. The motions having thus been submitted, the
respondent judge on December 29, 1938 issued an order denying them and ruling that the accused
Mariano Marcos, Quirino Lizardo and Pio Marcos were not entitled to bail because they were
charged with a capital offense, the proof against them was evident, and the presumption of guilt
strong. Prior to this date they had asked for a preliminary investigation. The motion to that effect
was denied on the ground that the investigation conducted by the respondent judge before issuing
the warrant of arrest was in the nature of a preliminary investigation. Motion for reconsideration
was filed, and on December 27, 1938 this motion was likewise denied, but the judge in the same
order admitted Ferdinand Marcos to bail on the ground that he was under 18 when the crime was
committed, that he was a remarkably bright student of the College of Law in the University of the
Philippines, that he would finish his studies the following March, and that he had given assurances,
together with his lawyers, that he would not leave the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether the accused Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, and Quirino Lizardo are entitled to be
admitted to bail at this stage of the criminal proceedings, that is, before conviction. Section 1,
paragraph 16, Article III of the Constitution, provides: "(16) All persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of
guilt is strong. Excessive bail shall not be required."
HELD: Section 63 of General Orders, No. 58 does not run counter to section 1, paragraph 16,
Article III of the Constitution, since in this jurisdiction every accused person is bailable before
conviction, unless charged with a capital offense, when proof of guilt is evident and presumption
of guilt strong (U. S. v. Babasa, 19 Phil., 198; Montalbo v. Santamaria, 64 Phil., 966). When the
crime charged is a capital offense, admission to bail lies within the discretion of the court, and
depends upon whether the proof is evident and the presumption of guilt strong (Montalbo v.
Santamaria, supra).
We are not unmindful of the fact that in People v. Solon (47 Phil., 443), and in Payao v. Lesaca
(63 Phil., 210), we said that when the investigation of a criminal case is conducted by a judge of
first instance, it includes both the summary investigation spoken of in Act No. 194, as amended
by Acts Nos. 1450 and 1627, and the preliminary investigation referred to in section 13 of General
Orders, No. 58; and we are aware of the contention of the prosecution that applying the doctrine
laid down in those two cases, the evidence adduced before the respondent judge could be used
against the accused and in fact established the presumption of guilt. But it must be borne in mind
that the hearing required by section 66 of General Orders, No. 58, is essentially different from the
preliminary investigation to which every person is entitled who is accused of a crime triable before
the Court of First Instance, and that if the prosecution had intended the summary investigation
conducted by the respondent judge to be a preliminary investigation, its duty was to summon the
accused and adduce its evidence in their presence.
Wherefore, let the writ of certiorari issue and the order of December 29, 1938 denying bail to the
accused Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, and Quirino Lizardo be set aside. The respondent judge, or
whoever acts in his stead, shall set the petitions filed by these accused regarding bail for hearing,
at which the fiscal should prove that they fall within the exception and are therefore not entitled to
bail because they are charged with a capital offense, the proof is evident, and the presumption of
their guilt is strong. The evidence thus adduced may be rebutted by the accused with other evidence
to show their right. Without special award of costs. So ordered.

Marcos Vs Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marcos Vs Cruz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marcos Vs Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 46490. January 24, 1939.

MARIANO MARCOS, PIO MARCOS and QUIRINO LIZARDO, Petitioners, v. ROMAN

You might also like