G.R. No. L-439 August 20, 1946 EDUARDO OCAMPO vs. OCAMPO vs. JOSE BERNABE, et al.
Facts: The petitioner was arrested for allegedly pointing out Placido Trinidad as a guerrilla to the Japanese and for that reason Placido Trinidad was shot to death. No evidence, however, was presented by the special prosecutor and all he did at the hearing was to recite the contents of an affidavit and to state further that he 27 more affidavits. Petitioner made an objection stating that a mere recital is not a evidence and that evidence cannot be considered strong which has not been subjected to the test of cross-examination. He presented two affidavits, one from Trinidad’s mother and the other from Trinidad’s uncle, wherein it is stated that Placido Trinidad was killed by the Japanese because of his having attempted to wrest a revolver from a foreman in charge of a detail at work under orders of the Japanese and that petitioner had nothing to do with such killing. The Fourth Division of the th e People’s Court denied petitioner’s petition for bail. Issues: 1. WON evidence of guilt is strong, or presumption great. 2. WON the People’s Court committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the petition for bail of the petitioner. Held: 1. No, it is not. “At “At the hearing of the application for bail, the burden of showing that the case falls within the exception is on the prosecution, according to Rule 110, section 7. The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is, as stated in Herras Teehankee Teehankee case, a matter of judicial discretion. xxx Since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court (Ramos vs. Ramos, 45 Phil., 362), it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, court, the petitioner having the right of cross-examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. Mere affidavits or recital of their contents are not sufficient since they are mere hearsay evidence, evidence, unless the petitioner fails to object thereto. ” The petitioner was not given the chance to cross-examine cross- examine the prosecutor’s witnesses who provided the affidavits. 2. Yes. As stated in the Herras Teehankee case, Teehankee case, the determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion. The prevailing doctrine in the United States is that no matter which side bears the burden of proof, the evidence of guilt should be adduced before the court for a proper determination of its probative force. The court also noted that under the Alabama statutes upon the hearing of applications for bail, either before or after indictment, the court is not, not , as according to the practice in England, confined to the written evidence evidence taken down before the committing magistrate. The court also added “In “In capital case, application for bail calls for exercise of judicial discretion in determining probability of defendant's guilt which requires
submission of evidence. (Shaw vs. State)”. Furthermore, “Where on a motion to admit to bail after the indictment, the evidence of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury does not make a prima facie case against the accused, he is entitled to bail, and it is an error to refuse bail upon the statement of the district attorney that he has other evidence which he will not disclose for fear of weakening the state's case. (In ex parte Reynald, 37 Texas, 1.)”. Therefore, the Court concluded that “petitioner no proof was offered by the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt is strong, the Fourth Division of the People's Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the bail applied for. ” The order denying the petition was set aside and the respondent court is ordered to hold another hearing for bail.
Shorter version: The evidence of guilt must be strong for the application for bail for capital offenses to be refused. But in this case, the special prosecutor did not present any evidence but rather only affidavits. Thus, the court had nothing to base their determination on of whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not. For that reason, bail must be set for the petitioner.
With regard to Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan: Evidence must first be presented and examined in a hearing for bail before it can be determined whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not, and if not, for the amount of bail to be set, because the determination is a matter of judicial discretion. In the case of Enrile vs Sandiganbayan, there was no hearing for bail because Enrile did not file an application for bail. The hearing for bail is important in his case because he is being charged with an offense punishable of reclusion perpetua. Since there was no hearing of bail, the court still had no opportunity to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. Thus, with no affirmative determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong in a case where the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua because no hearing for bail commenced, Enrile must not be granted bail. This is regardless of his medical conditions and him being not a flight risk.
