[ G.R. Nos. L-35612-14. June 27, 1973 ] 151-A Phil. 815
[ G.R. Nos. L-35612-14. June 27, 1973 ]
NORBERTO MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GUMACA BRANCH, PRESIDED OVER BY THE HONORABLE JUAN MONTECILLO, AND THE PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF QUEZON PROVINCE, RESPONDENTS. R E S O L U T I O N
FERNANDO, J.:
Our resolution of January 26, 1973 dismissing these petitions for habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus for lack of merit is sought to be reconsidered. It was our ruling that petitioner failed to sustain the burden of showing that his confinement was marked by illegality or that the order cancelling the bail previously issued was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. It is to the credit of his able counsel, former Senator Estanislao Fernandez, that his fight for provisional liberty is carried on with a further manifestation of skilled scholarly effort, but such valiant attempt to secure his release is doomed to fail. The law, as will hereafter be set forth, points to the contrary. Deference to its command precludes a reconsideration. This resolution will likewise briefly touch upon the question of why the issuance of a brief dismissal order does not in any wise offend against the constitutional provision requiring that no decision “shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based."[1]
- Habeas corpus could properly be invoked by petitioner if he were able to show the illegality of his detention. There is aptness and accuracy in the characterization of the writ of habeas corpus as the writ of liberty. Rightfully it is latitudinarian in scope. It is wide-ranging and all – embracing in its reach. It can dig deep into the facts to assure that there be no toleration of illegal restraint. Detention must be for a cause recognized by law. The writ imposes on the judiciary the grave responsibility of ascertaining whether a deprivation of physical freedom is warranted. This it has to discharge without loss of time. The party who is keeping a person in custody has to produce him in court as soon as possible. What is more, he must justify the action taken. Only if it can be demonstrated that there has been no violation of one’s right to liberty will he be absolved from responsibility. Unless there be such a showing, the confinement must thereby cease.
The above formulation of what is settled law finds no application to the present situation. Petitioner’s deprivation of liberty is in accordance with a warrant of arrest properly issued after a determination by the judge in compliance with the constitutional provision requiring the examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses produced.[2] No allegation to the contrary may be entertained. It cannot be denied that petitioner’s co-accused, Nelso Unal, Hermogenes Lumanglas and Leopoldo Trinidad, had previously come to this court to challenge the filing of one information where there were three victims. Accordingly, this Court, in Unal vs. People,[3] required three separate amended informations. There was no question, however, as to the legality of the warrants of arrest previously issued, not only in the case of the parties in such petition, but likewise of petitioner. Habeas corpus, under the circumstances, would not therefore lie.[4]
- Even if it be granted that petitioner may not be released on a habeas corpus proceeding, is he, however, entitled to bail? Precisely that is the remedy by which, notwithstanding the absence of any flaw in one’s confinement, provisional liberty may still be had. Such a remedy, as a matter of fact, was granted him in accordance with an order of the municipal court of Mulanay. Thereafter, however, the bail was revoked by the Court of First Instance in the order now challenged. Such actuation he would now condemn as a grave abuse of discretion. In the landmark decision of Chief Justice Concepcion, People vs. Hernandez,[5] the right to bail was rightfully stressed as an aspect of the protection accorded individual freedom which, in his eloquent language, “is too basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state, like ours, * * *."[6] To be more matter of fact about it, there is this excerpt from de la Camara vs. Enage:[7] “Before conviction, every person is bailable except if charged with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. Such a right flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby a regime of liberty is honored in the observance and not in the breach. It is not beyond the realm of probability, however, that a person charged with a crime, especially so where his defense is weak, would just simply make himself scarce and thus frustrate the hearing of his case. A bail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent would be thwarted. It is, in the language of Cooley, a ‘mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty, insure the attendance of the accused’ for the subsequent trial. Nor is there anything unreasonable in denying this right to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong, as the likelihood is, rather than await the outcome of the proceeding against him with a death sentence, an ever-present threat, temptation to flee the jurisdiction would be too great to be resisted."[8]
The precise question, however, is whether once the provisional liberty has been thus obtained, it could be terminated by the cancellation of the bail. In the answer filed on behalf of respondent Court, Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza did stress the absence of authority on the part of special counselor Antonio R. Robles who was not authorized to intervene in this case on behalf of the state but did so, his failure to object being the basis of the bail granted by the municipal court of Mulanay, Quezon. Such an allegation was denied by petitioner. We are not called upon to rule definitely on this aspect as independently thereof, there are two other basic objections. One was that petitioner, when the bail was granted, was still at large. The municipal court, therefore, could not have granted bail in accordance with our ruling in Feliciano vs. Pasicolan.[9] Thus: “‘The constitutional mandate that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, is subject to the limitation that the person applying for bail should be in custody of the law, or otherwise deprived of his liberty. The purpose of bail is to secure one’s release and it would be incongruous as to grant bail to one who is free.’"[10] Secondly, and what is worse, the prosecution was never given a chance to present its evidence. The authoritative doctrine in People vs. San Diego[11] is thus squarely in point: “Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the Court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and order of the Court granting bail should be considered void."[12]
Nor is the San Diego ruling novel. As far back as 1958, in People vs. Raba,[13] it was held: “Considering that Talantor did not serve notice of his motion to reduce bail on the provincial fiscal at least three days before the hearing thereof and the court failed to require that a reasonable notice thereof be given to said fiscal, it is evident that the court acted improperly in reducing the bail without giving the fiscal an opportunity to be heard."[14] Just after San Diego, this Court had occasion to stress anew such a principle in People vs. Bocar.[15] As set forth in the opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes: “It cannot be denied that, under our regime of laws, and concomitant with the legal presumption of innocence before conviction, an accused is entitled to provisional liberty on bail, the only exception being when he is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of his guilt is strong. But even in the latter instance, the high regard reserved by the law for personal freedom is underscored by the provision placing upon the prosecution, not on the defense, the burden of proving that the accused is not entitled to bail. This protective attitude towards the sanctity of the liberty of a person notwithstanding, due process also demands that in the matter of bail the prosecution should be afforded full opportunity to present proof of the guilt of the accused. Thus, if it were true that the prosecution in this case was deprived of the right to present its evidence against the bail petition, or that the order granting such petition was issued upon incomplete evidence, then the issuance of the order would really constitute grave abuse of discretion that would call for the remedy of certiorari."[16]
The last sentence in the above excerpt finds application in the matter before us. No grave abuse of discretion to justify the grant of the writ of certiorari prayed for has been shown. That is why our resolution sought to be reconsidered should stand.
- That brings us to the point raised in the motion for reconsideration objecting to our dismissing the petition through a minute resolution. It is his contention that there should be an extended decision. As noted at the outset, reliance is had on the constitutional provision requiring a decision by a court of record to contain “clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.” According to a recent decision, Jose vs. Santos,[17] what is expected of the judiciary “is that the decision rendered makes clear why either party prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any rigid formula as to the language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he must use upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs."[18] What must then be stressed is that under such a provision as held in the early case of Soncuya vs. National Investment Board,[19] the decision spoken of is the judgment rendered after the previous presentation of the proof in an ordinary civil or criminal case upon a stipulation of facts upon which its disposition is to be based. In Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Henares,[20] the above decision was cited with approval, with the opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes containing the following: “Plaintiff-appellant assigns as another error that the order appealed from does not contain any statement of the facts and the law on which it is based. Obviously, this is based on Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, and Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution. The contention is untenable, since these provisions have been held to refer only to decisions on the merits and not to orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters such as the one at bar."[21]
It is thus not self-evident that petitioner could justly lay claim to a grievance. For if the situation is subjected to a searching analysis, it cannot be denied that what is really involved is just a mere incident in the prosecution of petitioner. Had he prevailed, he would have been entitled to provisional liberty. Under the circumstances, as the facts of the case clearly demonstrate, with the plea for habeas corpus being unavailing, we felt that a minute resolution which certainly would require less time than a full-blown decision, was not inappropriate. Precisely, the leniency shown the parties to dwell at length on their respective contentions should disprove any suspicion that the decision arrived at was reached without according the parties the fundamental fairness to which they are entitled under the Constitution. Since, at the most, the relief sought by petitioner will not, in any way, foreclose the ultimate outcome of the cases against him one way or the other, we deemed that the constitutional provision invoked did not strictly call for application. In that sense, a minute resolution certainly cannot be stigmatized as in any wise failing to abide by a constitutional command.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied, our resolution of January 26, 1973 dismissing the petitions for lack of merit reiterated and the temporary restraining order issued by us on October 16, 1973 lifted so that the case against petitioner can be duly heard forthwith. Without pronouncement as to costs.
Makalintal, Acting C.J., Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio, and Esguerra, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., concurs in a separate opinion.