People of the Philippines vs. Judge Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991

People of the Philippines vs. Judge Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991

Nature:  Instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for restraining order/preliminary injunction

Keywords:  Waiver of right; Rebellion; Bailable offense;

DAVIDE, JR., J.

Facts:  Private respondent and his co-accused were charged of rebellion on October 2, 1986 for acts committed before and after February 1986. Private respondent filed with a Motion to Quash alleging that: (a) the facts alleged do not constitute an offense; (b) the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants; and (d) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished. This was denied. May 9, 1987 Respondent filed a petition for bail, which was opposed that the respondent is not entitled to bail anymore since rebellion became a capital offense under PD 1996, 942 and 1834 amending ART. 135 of RPC. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No. 187 repealing, among others, P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. Judge Donato now granted the bail, which was fixed at P30,000.00 and imposed a condition that he shall report to the court once every two months within the first ten days of every period thereof. Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration indirectly asking the court to deny bail to and to allow it to present evidence in support thereof considering the "inevitable probability that the accused will not comply with this main condition of his bail. It was contended that:

1. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from detention when arrested; (Chairman of CPP-NPA)

2. He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address;

3. He was using the false name "Manuel Mercado Castro" at the time of his arrest and presented a Driver's License to substantiate his false identity;

4. The address he gave "Panamitan, Kawit, Cavite," turned out to be also a false address;

5. He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and address were also found to be false;

6. Pursuant to Ministry Order No. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 , a reward of P250,000.00 was offered and paid for his arrest.

This however was denied. Hence the appeal.

Issue:  Whether or Not the private respondent has the right to bail.

Held:  Yes. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital offense, therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence. It is only when it is a capital offense that the right becomes discretionary. However it was wrong for the Judge to change the amount of bail from 30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution.

Republic Act No. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990, providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua to the crime of rebellion, is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him.

Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case (petition for habeas corpus). Agreements were made therein: accused to remain under custody, whereas his co-detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately, with a condition that they will submit themselves in the jurisdiction of the court. Said petition for HC was dismissed. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. Ergo, there was a waiver. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

Ruling:  WHEREFORE, the Orders of respondent Judge of July 7, 1987 and July 30, 1987 in Criminal Case No. 86-48926 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo C. Salas alias Commander Bilog/Henry, Josefina Cruz alias Mrs. Mercado, and Jose Milo Concepcion alias Eugene Zamora, for Rebellion, are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

Doctrine: ––rebellion is a bailable offense; bail as a matter of right – Right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended; Prosecution does not have the right to present evidence for the denial of bail in the instances where bail is a matter of right, such is required only bail is discretionary;

Waiver of the right

1) the right exists;

2) voluntary relinquishment;

Right to bail may be waived.

NOTE: The doctrine of waiver extends to the rights and privileges of any character, and since the word "waiver" covers any conceivable right, it is the general rule that a person may waive any matter which affects his property, and any alienable right or privilege of which he is the owner or which belongs to him or to which he is legally entitled whether secured by contract, conferred

with statute, or guaranteed by constitution, provided such rights and privi¬leges do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the waiver of the right or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy.

Rights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall naturally into two classes: (a) Those in which the state, as well as the accused, is interested, and (b) those which are personal to the accused, which are in the nature of personal privileges. Those of the first class cannot be waived, those of the second may be. (Commonwealth v. Petrillo).

This Court has recognized waivers of constitutional rights such as the rights against unreason¬able searches and seizures, the right to counsel and to remain silent, and the right to be heard.

The right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.