d2015member
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, People of the Phils, and PNP Dir-Gen Mendoza (2003) Short version: Serapio, Pres Estrada, and Jinggoy were accused of plunder. There were lots of motions for reconsideration, motions to quash, and petitions for bail filed with the Ombudsman, and then to the Sandiganbayan because apparently, the case was already transferred there. The facts are super procedural so I suggest reading the “issues” and “held” parts for a quick understanding of the case. Facts:
Serapio was in the Board of Trustees and the legal counsel of the “Erap Muslim Youth Foundation” As a trustee of the foundation, Serapio received a donation of P200 million from Chavit Singson. Serapio turned it over to the treasurer of the Foundation. o It was deposited to Equitable Bank. o Later that year, Singson then publicly accused Pres. Estrada of illegal activities, including operation of jueteng. Such accusation triggered a filing of criminal complaints with the Ombudsman against Pres Estrada, Jinggoy, Serapio, and others. All accused filed a counter-affidavits. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation an issued a resolution recommending that the accused be charged with plunder. No bail was recommended. When Serapio got a copy of the Resolution finding probable cause against him for plunder, he filed with the Ombudsman a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation Ombudsman denied this because they did not have jurisdiction to reinvestigate since the information charging them with plunder was already filed with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan then found probable cause to justify the issuance of warrants of arrest against the accused. Serapio voluntarily surrendered to the PNP. He has since then been detained at Camp Crame. Before arraignment, Serapio filed an Urgent Petition for Bail. Co-accused Jinggoy filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion saying that he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. o Sandiganbayan set the hearing for the petition for bail before the arraignment of the accused. Sandiganbayan then issued a resolution requiring the attendance of the accused during the hearings on the petitions for bail under pain of waiver of cross-examination. The Sandiganbayan, citing its inherent powers to proceed the trial in the manner it determines best conducive to orderly proceedings and speedy termination, directed the other accused to participate in the bail hearing considering that under Section 8, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, whatever evidence is adduced during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial. BUT instead of proceeding with the bail hearing, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order canceling the bail hearing due to pending incidents yet to be resolved and reset the hearing. The bail hearing did not again proceed because on said date petitioner f iled with the Sandiganbayan a motion t o quash because the Information does not allege a combination or series of overt or criminal acts constitutive of plunder Prosecution objected to the bail hearing until the accused agrees to withdraw his motion to quash. The prosecution also contends that the motion to quash the Information was antithetical to his petition for bail. The Sandiganbayan reset the arraignment and the hearing to enable it to resolve the motion to quash. BUT, even before the Sandiganbayan could resolve the motion, Serapio filed a petition for Habeas Corpus with the SC. He claims to have been effectively denied his right to due process, and also praying that the People be declared to have waived their right to present evidence in opposition to his petition for bail because of their failure to adduce strong evidence of his guilt of plunder. Jinggoy filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to fix his bail. This was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Just before Serapio’s arraignment, he manifested to the Sandiganbayan that he was going to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution denying his motion to quash. The Sandiganbayan, however, declared that there was no provision in the Rules of Court or in the Sandiganbayan's rules granting the right to Serapio to file a motion for the reconsideration of an interlocutory order. Sandiganbayan ordered Serapio to orally argue his motion for reconsideration. Serapio refused. Still, Sandiganbayan proceeded with his arraignment. Serapio refused to plead. Ando so the court to entered a plea of not guilty. Serapio filed with the SC a Petition for Certiorari alleging that the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of jurisdiction when: It denied his motion to quash o The material inculpatory allegations against him do not constitute plunder o He was charged for more than one offense. o Jinggoy also filed petition for certiorari for the nullification of a resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his motion to fix bail.
Issue on bail: 1. Should Serapio first be arraigned before before the hearings hearings of his his petition for bail be conducted? 2. Can Serapio Serapio file a motion to quash the amended information during pendency of of petition for bail? 3. Is a joint hearing of the petition for bail of all all the accused mandatory? mandatory? 4. Did the People waive their their right to adduce adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail, and did they also also fail to adduce adduce strong evidence of Serapio’s guilt for the crimes charged? Held: 1. 2.
No. Arraignment is not a prerequisite to hearings on petition for bail. Yes. There There is no inconsistency between an application for bail and and his filing of of a motion to quash.
d2015member
3.
4.
No. There is no provision provision in the Revised Rules on CrimPro or the Rules of Procedure of of the Sandiganbayan governing governing the hearings of 2 or more petitions for bail files by diff erent accused or that apetition for bail of an accused be heard simultaneouslywith the trial of the case against the other accused. No. Serapio’s claim that the prosecution refused to present evidence to prove his guilt for purposes of his bail application and that the Sandiganbayan has refused to grant a hearing is not in the records.
Ratio: Re: First Issue The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary o surrender. An accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a petition for bail. o In cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. However, these should not be taken to mean that the hearing on a petition for bail should at ALL times precede arraignment, because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty, even before a complaint or information is filed against him. SC discusses its ruling in Lavides: The accused in Lavides filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to quash the information filed against him. o To condition the grant of bail on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between: (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held; and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and then be released on bail. This would undermine his right not to be put on trial except upon a valid complaint or Information sufficient to o charge him with a crime AND his right to bail When bail is a matter of right, an accused may apply for and be granted bail even before arraignment. The ruling in Lavides implies that an application for bail in a case involving an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death may also be heard even before an accused is arraigned. If the court finds that the accused is entitled to bail because the evidence against him is not strong, he may be granted provisional liberty even before arraignment; for in such a situation, bail would be “authorized” under the circumstances. IN CONCLUSION: Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion in ordering the arraignment of Serapio before proceeding with the hearing of his petition for bail.
Re: Second issue There is no inconsistency between an application application for bail and filing of a motion to quash. What is “bail”: Bail is the security given for the release of a person in the custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, o to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions set forth under the Rules of Court. Its purpose: to obtain the provisional liberty of a person charged with an offense until his conviction while at the o same time securing his appearance at the trial. A person may apply for bail from the moment that he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary o surrender. What is a “motion to quash an information”? A motion to quash an information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or o Information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the Information. An accused may file a motion to quash the Information, as a general rule, before arraignment. o The right of an accused right to seek provisional liberty when charged with an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or when charged with an offense punishable by such penalties but after due hearing, evidence of his guilt is found not to be strong, does not preclude his right to assail the validity of the Information charging him with such offense. BUT if a motion to quash an Information (on the ground that the information does not charge any offense) is granted and the case is dismissed, the petition for bail of an accused may become moot and academic
Re: Third issue There is no provision governing the hearings of 2 or more petitions for bail filed by different accused or that a petition for bail of an accused be heard simultaneously with the trial of the case against the other accused. Whether or not to conduct a joint hearing is addressed to the discretion of TC. Unless grave abuse of discretion is shown, the SC will not interfere with the exercise by the Sandiganbayan of its discretion. BUT in the exercise of its discretion, the Sandiganbayan must take into account not only the convenience of the State, but also of the accused and the witnesses The Sandiganbayan must also consider the complexities of the cases and of the factual and legal issues involving both parties
d2015member
Re: Fourth issue The prosecution did not waive, expressly or impliedly, its right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail. Note that the Sandiganbayan had already scheduled the hearing dates for Serapio’s application for bail but the he arings were reset due to pending incidents raised in several motions by the parties, which had to be resolved by the court before the bail hearings. The delay in the conduct of hearings on Serapio’s application for bail is not imputable solely to the Sandiganbayan or to the prosecution, but also to Serapio.
Note:
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. The determination of whether or not the evidence is strong remains with the judge. Serapio cannot be released until the Sandiganbayan conducts a hearing of his application for bail.
Petition dismissed. Separate opinion: Vitug, J.- opinion not related to bail but to distinguishing “series” and “combination” in Plunder Dissent: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. – J. – opinion not related to bail but to “conspiracies”
