Cortes vs. Catral

3/8/22, 1:36 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 279
*
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387. September 10, 1997.
FLAVIANO B. CORTES, complainant, vs. JUDGE SEGUNDO B.

CATRAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Aparri, Cagayan,
respondent.
Criminal Law; Right to Bail; Words and Phrases; Presumption of

Innocence; “Bail,” Defined; Bail is awarded to the accused to honor the
presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt,
and to enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to
punishment prior to conviction.—Bail is the security required by the court
and given by the accused to ensure that the accused appears before the
proper court at the scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought
against him or her. It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of
innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable
him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to
conviction.
____________
* EN BANC.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cortes vs. Catral
Same; Same; Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion,

reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or
fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation.—Bail should be
fixed according to the circumstances of each case. The amount fixed should
be sufficient to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial yet reasonable
enough to comply with the constitutional provision that bail should not be
excessive. Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion,
reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or
fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation because in fixing
the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f68088796431cda53000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/18
factors such as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other

bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; A summary hearing means such

brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt
as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely
to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail.—A summary
hearing means such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering
the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of
hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of
bail. On such hearing, the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into
any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for
or against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on
what further evidence may be therein offered or admitted. The course of
inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court which may confine itself to
receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding
unnecessary thoroughness in the examination and cross examination.
Same; Same; Judges; The judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even

in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leaves the
application of bail to the sound discretion of the court.—In the recent case
of Inocencio Basco v. Judge Leo M. Rapatalo, this Court ruled that “x x x
the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the
prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application of bail to
the sound discretion of the court. A hearing is likewise required if the
prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
grant and fix bail. The importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a
few cases wherein the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to
adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 3
Cortes vs. Catral
bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching
questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or
the lack of it against the accused.”
Same; Same; Same; Inasmuch as the determination of whether or not

the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial
discretion, it may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to
the court at the hearing.—The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as the
determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is
strong is a matter of judicial discretion, it may rightly be exercised only
after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the
discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot

properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is
obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the
evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of
cross examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal.
Same; Same; Same; The court’s order granting or refusing bail must
contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution, otherwise the order
may be invalidated because the summary of the evidence for the prosecution
which contains the judge’s evaluation of the evidence may be considered as
an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the
defense.—Worth noting, too, is the fact that the order granting the
application, as well as the reduction for bail in the aforecited cases, did not
contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution. In
Criminal Case No. 07-874, respondent only arrived at the conclusion that
“the evidence was not so strong to warrant the fixation of said amount” and
the observation that: “When the hearing of this petition was called, some
legal skirmishes arose between the Prosecutor and the Defense Counsel,
after which, the prosecutor out of humanitarian reason yielded and
manifested that he is amenable that the accused be admitted to bail in the
amount of P200,000.00” in Criminal Case No. 08-866. Well settled in a
number of cases is the rule that the court’s order granting or refusing bail
must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution, otherwise the
order granting or denying bail may be invalidated because the summary of
the evidence for the prosecution which contains the judge’s evaluation of the
evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both
the prosecution and the defense.
Cortes vs. Catral
Same; Same; The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who
is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be
premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for someone
whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.—The procedural lapse of respondent
judge is aggravated by the fact that even though the accused in Criminal
Case No. 07-874, People v. Ahmed Duerme, have yet to be arrested,
respondent already fixed bail in the sum of P200,000.00. Respondent
evidently knew that the accused were still at large as he even had to direct
their arrest in the same order where he simultaneously granted them bail. At
this juncture, there is a need to reiterate the basic principle that the right to
bail can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or
otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say
incongruous, to file a petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to
be curtailed.
Same; Same; As long as in fixing the amount of bail the court is guided
by the purpose for which bail is required, that is, to secure the appearance
of the accused to answer charges brought against him, the decision of the
court to grant bail in the sum it deems appropriate will not be interfered
with.—In Criminal Case No. 08-915 for homicide filed against accused Nilo
de Rivera, complainant alleges that the amount of P14,800.00 granted by
respondent as bailbond of the accused is too low. Respondent judge stresses
that the amount was recommended by the prosecutor and not motu proprio
by the trial court. Respondent added that the amount of bail was appropriate
inasmuch as it was fixed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in
Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94. As long as in fixing the amount
of bail, the court is guided by the purpose for which bail is required, that is,
to secure the appearance of the accused to answer charges brought against
him, the decision of the court to grant bail in the sum it deems appropriate
will not be interfered with.
Same; Same; Judges; Gross Ignorance; A judge is guilty of gross

ignorance of the law if he grants bail in a murder case without conducting
the requisite hearing.—In sum, we find respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral
guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused in
Criminal Cases Nos. 07-874 and 08-866 without having conducted the
requisite hearing. It is indeed surprising, not to say, alarming, that the Court
should be besieged with a number of administrative cases filed against
erring judges involving bail. After all, there is no dearth of jurisprudence on
the basic principles involving bail. As a matter of fact, the Court itself,
Cortes vs. Catral
through its Philippine Judicial Academy, has been including lectures on the
subject in the regular seminars conducted for judges.
Same; Same; Same; Duties of Judge in Bail Applications.—Be that as

it may, we reiterate the following duties of the trial judge in case an
application for bail is filed: “1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right
or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for
bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of
the Rules of Court as amended); 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion,
conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused
is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound
discretion (Sections 7 and 8); 3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is
strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; 4. If the guilt
of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bailbond (Section 19). Otherwise, the petition should be denied.”
Same; Same; Same; Faith in the administration of justice can only be

engendered if litigants are convinced that the members of the Bench cannot
justly be charged with a deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.—With
such succinct but clear rules now incorporated in the Rules of Court, trial
judges are enjoined to study them well and be guided accordingly.
Admittedly, judges cannot be held to account for an erroneous decision
rendered in good faith, but this defense is much too frequently cited even if
not applicable. A number of cases on bail having already been decided, this
Court justifiably expects judges to discharge their duties assiduously. For a
judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with
basic legal principles. Faith in the administration of justice can only be
engendered if litigants are convinced that the members of the Bench cannot
justly be charged with a deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Ignorance of the Law.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Cortes vs. Catral
RESOLUTION
ROMERO, J.:
Once again, the Court is asked to elucidate on the rules in the grant
of the application for bail.
A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging
Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gross
Ignorance of the Law committed as follows:
“1. He granted bail in murder cases without hearing: People v.

Duerme, et al., Criminal Case No. 07-893 for murder and
People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal Case No. 08-866
for murder; These two cases are like the case of Teresita Q.
Tucay v. Judge Roger Domagas, 242 SCRA 110 being
classified as heinous crimes there (sic) are supposedly

unbailable;
2. On May 3, 1995, Barangay Captain Rodolfo Castaneda’s
Criminal Case No. 11-6250 for Illegal Possession of
Firearm was raffled and assigned to his sala. The provincial
prosecutor granted a bailbond of P180,000.00 but it was
reduced by Judge Segundo Catral for only P30,000.00. The
worst part of it—no hearing has been made from 1995 to
the present because according to his clerks, he is holding it
in abeyance. This Barangay Captain Rodolfo Castaneda is
one of the goons of Julio ‘Bong’ Decierto his nephew who
has a pending murder case;
3. Another Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivera with a homicide
case was granted with a bailbond of P14,800.00 by Judge
Segundo Catral. The amount is too low. It is because this
Nilo de Rivera is another goon of Julio ‘Bong’ Decierto;
4. Jimmy Siriban the right hand man of Julio ‘Bong’ Decierto
was sued for concubinage and convicted by Judge Herminio
del Castillo in MTC. Jimmy Siriban appealed and it was
elevated to the RTC Branch 08, the sala of Judge Segundo
Catral. Judge Segundo Catral acquitted Jimmy Siriban,
rumors in Aparri spread that the wife of Judge Segundo 1
Catral went to Jimmy Siriban’s house to get the envelope” ;
______________
1 Rollo, p. 83.

Cortes vs. Catral
In his comment dated August 16, 1996, respondent judge branded

the complainant as a “self anointed concern (sic) citizen” of Aparri,
Cagayan who has gained notoriety as a character assassinator, a
public nuisance and most often called speaker for hire during
election time. Respondent further laments that “a ‘ghost lawyer’ is
taking advantage of the notoriety of Mr. Flaviano Cortes by
manipulating him like a robot and letting him loose like a mad dog
barking on the wrong tree and biting everybody including the other
2
members of the bench.”
With regard to the first charge, respondent judge, in his comment,
clarified that Criminal Case No. 07-893 is the case of People v.
Willie Bumanglag y Magno for frustrated homicide pending in
Branch 7 of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri where the presiding
judge is Hon. Virgilio Alameda. However, if the complainant is
referring to Ahmed Duerme y Paypon, et al., Criminal Case No.

3
874 for murder pending in Branch 7 of the RTC where respondent
was then designated as presiding judge, respondent stresses that the
provincial prosecutor recommended P200,000.00 as bailbond for
each of the accused. Subsequently, in a motion for reduction of
bailbond, the resolution of the motion was submitted to the sound
discretion of the court. The court, “mindful of the fact that the
prosecution is banking on weak circumstantial evidence and guided
by the factors prescribed in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-
4
94 issued an order for reduction of the bailbond from P200,000.00
5
to P50,000.00.”
________________
2 Rollo, p. 18.
3 Criminal Case No. 07-874 is actually “People of the Philippines v. Edgardo
Fernando y Caddarao @ ‘Gardo,’ Cenon Duerme y Orel, Ahmed Duerme y Paypon,
Roberto Duerme @ ‘Berto’/‘Berting’ and Florante Duerme y Suguitan @ ‘Berong’ ”
but for purposes of this case, Criminal Case No. 07-874 shall be referred to as
“People v. Ahmed Duerme.”
4 Rule 114 of the Rules of Court on Bail was amended by the Supreme Court in its
Resolution dated August 16, 1994, the amendments of which took effect on October
1, 1994.
5 Rollo, p. 14.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 8

Cortes vs. Catral
In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal Case 08-866

for murder, the inquest judge issued a warrant of arrest for the
accused with no bail recommended. When the case was elevated to
the Regional Trial Court upon information filed by the provincial
prosecutor, the information made no mention of a bailbond. In the
hearing of the petition to determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and
recommended bail in the sum of P200,000.00 instead. Respondent
judge “acting on the said recommendation and again guided by the
provision of Section 9, Administrative Circular 12-94 in conjunction
with the evidence extant on the record approved the
6
recommendation of Prosecutor Apolinar Carrao.” A duplicate copy
of trial prosecutor Apolinar Carrao’s letter dated September 3, 1996
addressed to the provincial prosecutor Romeo Sacquing was
presented by the respondent to disprove the accusation7 that he
granted bail to the accused without conducting any hearing.
As regards the third charge concerning the illegal possession of
firearm against Barangay Captain Rodolfo Castaneda, the bailbond
recommended by the prosecutor was P180,000.00. Accused, through

counsel Atty. Bulseco, filed a motion for reduction of the bailbond to
P30,000.00. Counsel even vouched and guaranteed the appearance
of the accused in court, whenever required. The motion for reduction
of bailbond was submitted without serious opposition and the
prosecutor “mindful perhaps that there is no corpus of the crime as
no firearm was caught or taken from the possession of the accused
8
merely submitted the same to the discretion of the court.”
In Criminal Case No. 08-915 concerning a homicide case against
Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivero, respondent judge says that the
bailbond of P14,800.00 was recommended by the acting Officer-In-
Charge (OIC) as contained in his manifesta-
_______________
6 Rollo, p. 15.
7 Rollo, pp. 91-92.
8 Rollo, p. 16.
9 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

Cortes vs. Catral
9
tion accompanying the information. Respondent judge then “acting
on the recommendation of the OIC provincial prosecutor and
mindful of the guidelines in fixing a reasonable amount of bailbond
coupled by the fact that the evidence on record is merely
circumstantial and there was no eyewitness to the commission of
10
crime granted bailbond in the sum of P14,800.00.”
Finally, respondent judge says the accusation regarding the
acquittal of one Jimmy Siriban is simply the product of a dirty
imagination and is a dirty trick intended to defame the name of his
family by rumor mongers who are unwilling to come out in the open
to substantiate their accusation.
On September 9, 1996, respondent submitted his additional
comment dated September 5, 1996 informing the Office of the Court
Administrator that Criminal Case No. 07-784, referred to in the
letter complainant (sic) of Mr. Flaviano Cortes, has already been
dismissed by Judge Virgilio Alameda, RTC, Branch 07, Aparri
11
Cagayan, in his order dated August 16, 1996. Respondent judge
stresses that, as can be gleaned from the penultimate paragraph of
said order, the accused, despite reduction of their bailbonds,
remained detention prisoners because of their failure to post bond. In
his original comment, respondent stated, among others, that the
evidence against the accused in Criminal Case No. 07-874 was
based on weak circumstantial evidence which prompted the court to
grant them a reduced bailbond of P50,000.00. Respondent judge
noted that the complaining witnesses never appeared despite the fact
that the case had been set for hearing several times.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the
dismissal of the complaint saying that there is nothing in the
allegations of the complainant that would warrant the imposition of
administrative sanction against respondent judge.
______________
9 Rollo, p. 80.
10 Rollo, pp. 17-18.
11 Rollo, p. 113.
10

Cortes vs. Catral
In recommending the dismissal of the complaint against respondent

judge, the Office of the Court Administrator noted, “x x x
complainant failed to show any indication that bad faith motivated
the actuation of the respondent in granting and reducing the amount
of bail of the accused in some of the criminal cases that were
assigned in his sala. x x x it is crystal clear that the increase or
reduction of bail rests in the sound discretion of the court depending
upon the particular circumstances of the case. It should be noted
further that the reduction in the amount of bail of the accused in the
criminal cases in question were all done by the respondent with the
knowledge and conformity of the Public Prosecutor concerned.
Moreover, the actions taken by the respondent were in the exercise
of judicial discretion
12
that may not be assailed in an administrative
proceedings (sic).”
We do not agree.
Bail is the security required by the court and given by the
accused to ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at
the scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought against
him or her. It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of
innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to
enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to
13
punishment prior to conviction.
Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case.
The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the
accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with the
14
constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive.
Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion,
reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor
or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation
because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take

into account a number of factors
_______________
12 Rollo, p. 5.
13 Stack v. Boyle, 342 US 1; 96 L Ed 3, 72 S Ct. 1; Dudley v. US, 242 F 2d 656.
14 Article III, Section 13, 1987 Constitution.
11
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 11

Cortes vs. Catral
such as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other

15
bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.
When a person is charged with an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is a matter of
discretion. Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states: “No
person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is
strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the
criminal action.” Consequently, when the accused is charged with an
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, not only to take
into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court, but primarily to determine the existence of strong
evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused.
“A summary hearing means such brief and speedy method of
receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and
consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine
the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. On such hearing, the
court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as
to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against
the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on
what further evidence may be therein offered or admitted. The
course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court which
may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to
substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the
16
examination and cross examination.”
Respondent judge, in two instances, granted bail to an accused
charged with murder, without having conducted any hearing as to
whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
______________
15 Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. See also Asst. Prosecutor Antonio
Chin v. Judge Tito G. Gustilo, et al., A.M. No. 94-1243, August 11, 1995.
16 Siazon v. Presiding Judge, et al., 42 SCRA 184 (1971).
12

Cortes vs. Catral
In the case of People v. Ahmed Duerme y Paypon, et al., Criminal

Case No. 874, accused Ahmed Duerme together with four other
persons were charged with the crime of murder. The provincial
prosecutor recommended the sum of P200,000.00 as bailbond for
17
each accused. The records do not reveal whether a hearing was
actually conducted on the application for bail although respondent
judge implies that there was one, stating that “acting on this
recommendation of the provincial prosecutor and taking into
account the guidelines prescribed in Section 9 of Administrative
Circular 12-94, the court issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the
amount of P200,000.00 for the provisional liberty of each of the
18
accused.” Subsequently, counsel for accused Ahmed Duerme filed
a motion for reduction of bail. The “hearing” of the motion was
conducted on August 21, 1995 with the prosecution, not having
interposed any opposition, and submitting the resolution of the
motion to the sound discretion of the court instead. Respondent
judge then issued an order granting a reduced bailbond of
P50,000.00 for accused Ahmed Duerme inasmuch as “the evidence
19
was not so strong to warrant the fixation of said amount.”
Respondent judge, in his comment, disclosed that the prosecution
was banking on weak circumstantial evidence since there was no
eyewitness to the commission of the offense as borne out from the
20
affidavits and sworn statements of the prosecution witnesses. The
order granting the reduced bailbond, however, did not contain a
21
summary of the evidence for the prosecution.
In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal Case No.
08-866, accused Bumanglag was charged with murder in a criminal
complaint filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Ana,
Cagayan. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the inquest
judge issued a warrant of the arrest for the
________________
17 Annex F, Rollo, p. 50.

18 Rollo, p. 13.
19 Annex 1; Rollo, p. 55.
20 Rollo, p. 14.
21 Annex 1; Rollo, p. 55.
13
13 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

Cortes vs. Catral
accused with no bail recommended. When the case was elevated to

the Regional Trial Court, the information made no mention of a
bailbond. Consequently, accused through counsel filed a petition for
bail. In the hearing of the petition to determine whether or not the
evidence of guilt against the accused was strong, the fiscal opted not
to introduce
22
evidence and recommended the sum of P200,000.00
instead. Respondent judge, “acting on said recommendation and
again guided by the provision of Section 9, Administrative Circular
12-94 in conjunction with the evidence extant on record,” issued an 23
order granting bail to the accused in the sum of P200,000.00.
Unable to post the said bond, accused through counsel filed a motion
24
to reduce bail. In the course of the hearing of the petition, the
public prosecutor manifested that he had no objection to the sum of
P50,000.00 as bail for the accused. Respondent judge, then “guided
25
by the factual setting and the supporting evidence extant on record”
reduced the bail bond from P200,000.00 to P50,000.00 as
recommended by the prosecutor. Once again, the order granting the
bail of P200,000.00, as well as the reduced bail bond of P50,000.00,
did not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the
prosecution.
Respondent judge insists that in the aforecited cases, a hearing
was actually conducted on the application and motion for reduction
of bail, but the public prosecutor opted not to introduce evidence and
submitted the resolution of the petition, as well as the motion for
reduction of bail, to the sound discretion of the court instead.
Respondent observed that since it is a basic principle of procedure
that the prosecution of criminal cases is under the direct control and
supervision of the fiscal or prosecutor, would it be procedurally
proper for the court to compel prosecutor Apolinar Carrao, the
public prosecutor assigned in the case of People v. Rodrigo
Bumanglag,
______________
22 Annex A-A-7; Rollo, pp. 115-122.

23 Annex O; Rollo, p. 65.
24 Annex P; Rollo, pp. 66-68.
25 Rollo, p. 15.
14
Cortes vs. Catral
Criminal Case No. 08-866, to prove the evidence of guilt of the

accused for the crime of murder when the prosecutor candidly
admitted in open court that in his honest view, the strength of
evidence on hand for the state can only prove the crime of homicide
26
and not murder? 27
In the recent case of Inocencio Basco v. Judge Leo M. Rapatalo,
this Court ruled that “x x x the judge is mandated to conduct a
hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a
comment or leave the application of bail to the sound discretion of
the court. A hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to
adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix
bail. The importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few
cases wherein the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to
adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for
bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask
searching questions from which it may infer the strength of the
evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.”
The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as the determination of
whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a
matter of judicial discretion, it may rightly be exercised only after
the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the
discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence
cannot properly
28
be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before
the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion
requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the
petitioner having the right of29
cross examination and to introduce
evidence in his own rebuttal.
_______________
26 Rollo, p. 87.
27 A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335, promulgated March 5, 1997.
28 Basco v. Rapatalo, supra, citing Ramos v. Ramos, 45 Phil. 362.
29 Basco v. Rapatalo, supra, citing Ocampo v. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55.
15
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 15

Cortes vs. Catral
Respondent judge justifies the grant of bail in the two cases by

stating that the prosecutor recommended the grant of bail.
Respondent also added that in the case of People v. Ahmed Duerme,
there were no eyewitnesses to the commission of the offense as
borne out from the affidavits and sworn statements of the
30
witnesses. As a matter of fact, the case had already been dismissed
for failure to prosecute by Judge Alameda inasmuch as the

prosecutor himself admitted that there was lack of interest on the
part of the witnesses to pursue the case and not a single witness ever
31
went to court to see him.
The fact that Criminal Case No. 07-874 was subsequently
dismissed by Judge Alameda does not completely exculpate
respondent judge. We need only remind him that he is not bound by
the recommendation of the prosecutor and the affidavits and sworn
statements of the witnesses are mere hearsay statements which could
hardly be the basis for determining whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong.
Worth noting, too, is the fact that the order granting the
application, as well as the reduction for bail in the aforecited cases,
did not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the
prosecution. In Criminal Case No. 07-874, respondent only arrived
at the conclusion that “the evidence was not so strong to warrant the
32
fixation of said amount” and the observation that: “When the
hearing of this petition was called, some legal skirmishes arose
between the Prosecutor and the Defense Counsel, after which, the
prosecutor out of humanitarian reason yielded and manifested that
he is amenable that the accused be admitted to bail in the amount of
33
P200,000.00” in Criminal Case No. 08-866. Well settled in a
34
number of cases is the rule that the court’s order granting or
_______________
30 Rollo, p. 113.
31 Rollo, pp. 167-168.
32 Rollo, p. 55.
33 Rollo, p. 65.
34 See People v. San Diego, 26 SCRA 52; People v. Nano, 205 SCRA 155;
Guillermo v. Reyes, 240 SCRA 154; Santos v. Ofilada,
16

Cortes vs. Catral
refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the

prosecution, otherwise the order granting or denying bail may be
invalidated because the summary of the evidence for the prosecution
which contains the judge’s evaluation of the evidence may be
considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both the
prosecution and the defense.
The procedural lapse of respondent judge is aggravated by the
fact that even though the accused in Criminal Case No. 07-874,
People v. Ahmed Duerme, have yet to be arrested, respondent
already fixed bail in the sum of P200,000.00. Respondent evidently
knew that the accused were still at large as he even had to direct
their arrest in the same order where he simultaneously granted them
35
bail. At this juncture, there is a need to reiterate the basic principle
that the right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in
36
custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would
be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for
someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
With regard to the third charge filed against respondent judge, we
adopt the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator that the
complainant failed to show that bad faith motivated the actuation of
respondent judge in reducing the amount of bail in Criminal Case
No. 11250 for Illegal Possession of Firearm against Barangay
Captain Rodolfo Castaneda. Respondent judge, in granting and
subsequently reducing the recommended bailbond of P180,000.00
considered the fact that there was no corpus of the crime as no
firearm was taken from the possession of the accused, as well as the
fact that counsel for the accused vouched and guaranteed the
37
appearance of the accused in court whenever required. Moreover,
records show that, contrary to the allegations of the com-
______________
245 SCRA 56; Carpio v. Maglalang, 196 SCRA 41; Basco v. Rapatalo, A.M. No.
RTJ-96-1335, March 5, 1997.
35 Annex E; Rollo, p. 49.
36 Feliciano v. Pasicolan, 75 Phil. 634 (1961); Manigbas v. Luna, 98 SCRA 466
(1956); De los Santos-Reyes v. Montesa, Jr., 247 SCRA 85 (1995).
37 Annex R; Rollo, pp. 70-72.
17
17 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

Cortes vs. Catral
plainant, the trial of the case had already been set for hearing but on
more than one occasion, the defense counsel, as well as the
38
prosecutor, both moved to have it reset.
In Criminal Case No. 08-915 for homicide filed against accused
Nilo de Rivera, complainant alleges that the amount of P14,800.00
granted by respondent as bailbond of the accused is too low.
Respondent judge stresses that the amount was recommended by the
prosecutor and not motu proprio by the trial court. Respondent
added that the amount of bail was appropriate inasmuch as it was
fixed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Section 9 of
Administrative Circular 12-94. As long as in fixing the amount of
bail, the court is guided by the purpose for which bail is required,
that is, to secure the appearance of the accused to answer charges
brought against him, the decision of the court to grant bail in the
sum it deems appropriate will not be interfered with.
With respect to the last charge, we adopt the findings of the
Office of the Court Administrator that there is nothing in the record
to substantiate the allegation of the complainant that the acquittal of
a certain Jimmy Siriban by respondent judge was tainted with
irregularity. Other than his bare allegation, complainant has yet to
present evidence as to any irregularity committed by respondent
judge in acquitting Mr. Siriban.
In sum, we find respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral guilty of
gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused in
Criminal Cases Nos. 07-874 and 08-866 without having conducted
the requisite hearing. It is indeed surprising, not to say, alarming,
that the Court should be besieged with a number of administrative
cases filed against erring judges involving bail. After all, there is no
dearth of jurisprudence on the basic principles involving bail. As a
matter of fact, the Court itself, through its Philippine Judicial
Academy, has been including lectures on the subject in the regular
seminars conducted for judges. Be that as it may, we reiterate the
following duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is
filed:
______________
38 Annexes U, V, W and X; Rollo, pp. 76-79.
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 18

Cortes vs. Catral
“1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of

discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court as amended);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of
the application for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the
guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the
court to exercise its sound discretion; (Sections 7 and 8,
supra)
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on
the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
accused upon the approval of the bailbond (Section 19,
39
supra) Otherwise, the petition should be denied.”
With such succinct but clear rules now incorporated in the Rules of
Court, trial judges are enjoined to study them well and be guided
accordingly. Admittedly, judges cannot be held to account for an
erroneous decision rendered in good faith, but this defense is much
too frequently cited even if not applicable. A number of cases on
bail having already been decided, this Court justifiably expects
judges to discharge their duties assiduously. For a judge is called
upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with
basic legal principles. Faith in the administration of justice can only
be engendered if litigants are convinced that the members of the
Bench cannot justly be charged with a deficiency in their grasp of
legal principles.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Judge
Segundo B. Catral is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of P20,000.00
with the WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in
the future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and
Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
_______________
39 Basco v. Rapatalo, supra.
19
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 19

Salih vs. Commission on Elections
Regalado, J., No part—on leave during deliberations.
Respondent meted a P20,000 fine and warned against a

repetition of similar acts.
Note.—The judicial function of determining probable cause does

not carry with it a motu proprio review of the recommendation of
the prosecutor in a capital offense that no bail shall be granted. (De
Los Santos-Reyes vs. Montesa, Jr., 247 SCRA 85 [1995])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cortes vs. Catral

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cortes vs. Catral

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Cortes vs. Catral

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/8/22, 1:36 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 279

FLAVIANO B. CORTES, complainant, vs. JUDGE SEGUNDO B.

Criminal Law; Right to Bail; Words and Phrases; Presumption of

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cortes vs. Catral

Same; Same; Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion,

factors such as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other

Same; Same; Words and Phrases; A summary hearing means such

Same; Same; Judges; The judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even

VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 3

Cortes vs. Catral

Same; Same; Same; Inasmuch as the determination of whether or not

discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cortes vs. Catral

Same; Same; Judges; Gross Ignorance; A judge is guilty of gross

VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 5

Cortes vs. Catral

Same; Same; Same; Duties of Judge in Bail Applications.—Be that as

Same; Same; Same; Faith in the administration of justice can only be

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“1. He granted bail in murder cases without hearing: People v.

classified as heinous crimes there (sic) are supposedly

VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 7

In his comment dated August 16, 1996, respondent judge branded

referring to Ahmed Duerme y Paypon, et al., Criminal Case No.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 8

In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal Case 08-866

recommended by the prosecutor was P180,000.00. Accused, through

9 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In recommending the dismissal of the complaint against respondent

because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take

VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 11

such as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the case of People v. Ahmed Duerme y Paypon, et al., Criminal

17 Annex F, Rollo, p. 50.

13 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

accused with no bail recommended. When the case was elevated to

22 Annex A-A-7; Rollo, pp. 115-122.

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cortes vs. Catral

Criminal Case No. 08-866, to prove the evidence of guilt of the

VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 15

Respondent judge justifies the grant of bail in the two cases by

for failure to prosecute by Judge Alameda inasmuch as the

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the

17 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

38 Annexes U, V, W and X; Rollo, pp. 76-79.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 18

“1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of

Narvasa (C.J.), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

39 Basco v. Rapatalo, supra.

VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 19

Regalado, J., No part—on leave during deliberations.