REYNALDO ARBAS RECTO, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 236461, December 05, 2018

Facts
An Information for Murder was filed against petitioner Reynaldo Arbas Recto (Recto) for the death of
Margie Carlosita (Carlosita), the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 18th day of February, 2011 in the Municipality of Gen. Mariano Alvarez, Province of
Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
then armed with a hard object, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, abuse
of superior strength, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hit one
Margie Carlosita on the head and on the parts of her body with the use of said hard object, thereby
inflicting upon the latter traumatic injuries on the head and on her trunk, which caused her instantaneous
death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Margie Carlosita.

Thereafter, on May 23, 2011, Recto's former counsel filed a Petition for Bail with the Regional Trial Court
of Bacoor City, Branch 89 (RTC). However, on April 11, 2014, the RTC issued an Order denying Recto's
Petition for Bail as it gave credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Joshua Emmanuel Rabillas
(Rabillas), son of Carlosita, that Recto was the one who killed his mother. The RTC, in denying the Petition
for Bail, noted that "without, however, prejudging in any way the result of the case, the Court is of the
impression that the evidence of guilt is strong, and it is incumbent on the part of the accused to take the
witness stand to show otherwise."

Trial on the merits then ensued. After the prosecution rested its case, Recto filed a Demurrer to Evidence
on June 22, 2015 for insufficiency of evidence to hold him guilty of the crime of Murder. The RTC, however,
denied the Demurrer to Evidence through an Order dated December 22, 2015. In the said Order, the RTC
stated:

Considering, therefore, the testimony of Joshua pointing to the accused as the perpetrator of the crime
compared with the mere allegations of the accused that the victim committed suicide, it is imperative on
the part of the accused to take the witness stand, that is, if he so desires, to support his claim that he is
not guilty as charged.

Subsequently, on April 27, 2016, petitioner filed a Motion to Fix Bail alleging that the prosecution was able
to show that the crime charged should be Homicide only and not Murder. He pointed out that Rabillas,
who was five years old at the time of the incident, testified that Carlosita was hit by the bottle during a
quarrel over money. Citing People v. Riveraa case with substantially the same facts wherein the common-
law wife was killed by the common-law husband during a heated argument, Recto argued that the case
established by the prosecution was thus merely Homicide due to the absence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. As Recto had not taken the witness stand, then the RTC ruled against the
Motion to Fix Bail. Recto moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the RTC on January 29,
2016.

Aggrieved by the Order of the RTC denying his Motion to Fix Bail, Recto then filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the rule of court with the CA

The CA reasoned that Recto failed to show that the RTC's issuance of the Order was attended by grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the CA held that ''the
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under grilling examination."The CA, thus, deferred to the RTC's assessment of the
credibility of Rabillas' testimony, and also relied on its judgment that the evidence of guilt was strong. The
CA ultimately dismissed the case.

Recto thus filed this Petition on February 26, 2018. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), filed its Comment on September 13, 2018. Recto then filed his Reply on October 5, 2018
Issue:
Whether or not the accused be allowed to fix bail

Held:
The Petition is meritorious.

In this case, the denial of the Motion to Fix Bail by the RTC amounted to an evasion or refusal to perform
a positive duty enjoined by law. The Order denying the Motion to Fix Bail was thus issued with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction.

Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides:

SECTION 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

The following Constitutional provision is implemented by the following provisions of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. - All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of
right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or
after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable.
- No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution.

Thus, as a rule, all persons charged with a criminal offense have the right to bail. However, persons
charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua cannot avail of this right if the evidence of guilt
is strong.

In the present case, Recto was charged with Murder - an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus,
the RTC was acting within its powers or jurisdiction when it denied Recto's initial Petition for Bail. The RTC
possesses sufficient discretion to determine, based on the evidence presented before it during the bail
hearing, whether the evidence of guilt is strong.

However, after the prosecution had rested its case, Recto filed a Motion to Fix Bail on the ground that bail
had become a matter of right as the evidence presented by the prosecution could only convict Recto of
Homicide, not Murder. This Motion to Fix Bail was denied by the RTC, reiterating its earlier finding that,
in its judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong. This is where the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion,
and the CA thus erred in upholding the RTC's Order denying the Motion to Fix Bail.

As correctly pointed out by Recto, the evidence of the prosecution could, at best, only convict him of
Homicide and not Murder. The testimony of the main prosecution witness, Rabillas, was to the effect that
his mother and Recto had an argument prior to her death.

Jurisprudence provides that treachery cannot be appreciated if the accused did not make any preparation
to kill the deceased in such manner as to insure the commission of the killing or to make it impossible or
difficult for the person attacked to retaliate or defend himself. Mere suddenness of the attack is not
sufficient to hold that treachery is present, where the mode adopted by the aggressor does not positively
tend to prove that they thereby knowingly intended to insure the accomplishment of their criminal
purpose without any risk to themselves arising from the defense that the victim might offer.Specifically,
it must clearly appear that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with
a view to accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, we hold that the prosecution has not proven that the killing
was committed with treachery. Although accused-appellant shot the victim from behind, the fact was that
this was done during a heated argument. Accused-appellant, filled with anger and rage, apparently had
no time to reflect on his actions. It was not shown that he consciously adopted the mode of attacking the
victim from behind to facilitate the killing without risk to himself.

The other qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information filed against Recto - evident premeditation
and abuse of superior strength are likewise negated by the foregoing facts.

Based on the foregoing, there is thus merit in Recto's claim that the evidence presented by the
prosecution could, at most, convict him only of Homicide and not Murder. The RTC thus gravely abused
its discretion when it denied Recto's Motion to Fix Bail. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed
and set aside. Accordingly, the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor City, Branch 89 is order to fix the bail of
Reynaldo Arbas Recto.