7/17/2019 Santos vs Ofilada-digested

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/santos-vs-ofilada-digested 1/2

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1217 June 16, 1995

RODRIGO SANTOS, vs. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA 

FACTS:

Rolando Santos was charged for murder and for illegal possession of firearm before the RTC of 

Malolos, Bulacan, presided over b respondent !udge" Subse#uentl, the corresponding warrants of arrestwere issued b respondent $udge in the murder case where no bail was recommended b the public

 prosecutor, and in the case of illegal possession of firearms where bail of %&'','''"'' wasrecommended" Thereafter, counsel for the accused filed a Motion To Reinstate Former Bail and Reduction of 

the Amount of (ew Bail Bond" Respondent $udge granted said motion, fi)ing the bail bond in murder case at

%*','''"'' and reducing the recommended %&'','''"'' bail in illegal possession of firearms to %*','''"''"

An administrative complaint was filed assailing the said order of respondent $udge on the contentionthat the grant of said motion without hearing or notice to the provincial prosecutor constitutes a clear 

violation of the Rules of Court" The complainant, conse#uentl filed an +rgent Motion to -rder Re.raffle of 

Cases,+ praing that both cases be re.raffled to another branch of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos in the

interest of $ustice, considering that respondent $udge refused to voluntaril inhibit himself from tring saidcases"  The Court resolved to refer this administrative matter to the -ffice of the Court Administrator for 

evaluation, report and recommendation"

/SS0S:

1hether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of $udicial discretion"

1hether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custod for a capital offense be resolved in a

summar proceeding or in the course of a regular trial

R2/(3:

1hile the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of $udicial discretion, this

discretion, b the nature of things, ma rightl be e)ercised onl after the evidence is submitted to the courtat such hearing" 1hether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custod for a capital offense be resolved

in a summar proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must alwas be given an

opportunit to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it ma desire to introduce before thecourt ma resolve the motion for bail" /f the prosecution should be denied such an opportunit, there would

 be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void

on that ground"

Moreover, it is apparent from a reading of the impugned order granting bail that it lac4ed the re#uisitesummar or resumé of the evidence presented b the parties and necessar to support the grant of bail" There

is no recital therein of an evidence presented b the prosecution, much less a conclusion or a

 pronouncement therefrom that the guilt of the accused is not evident"

1e have repeatedl stressed that the order granting or refusing the bail must contain a summar of theevidence presented b the prosecution" The reason therefor is obvious" -n the basis thereof, the $udge should

7/17/2019 Santos vs Ofilada-digested

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/santos-vs-ofilada-digested 2/2

formulate his own conclusion as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, in order to determine

whether bail should be granted or withheld"