The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue.
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.
Facts:
CFI Negros Occidental issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda at Sta. Isabel, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. On September 16, 1980 armed with the above warrant, the 332nd PC/INP Company proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings made in a canefield yielded two common graves containing the 7 bodies. Seven (7) separate complaints for murder were thus filed against Pablo Sola and 18 other persons. The municipal court found probable cause against the accused and ordered their arrest. However, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the court granted them the right to post bail for their temporary release. Pablo Sola and two others have since been released from detention. The witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized. At least 2 of the accused are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition, most of the accused remained at large. There have been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses.
Issues:
1. Whether or not change of venue is proper
2. Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled for failure to abide by the basic requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is charged with a capital offense, prior to bail being granted.
Held:
Change of venue
Change of venue has become moot and academic with the transfer of the case to Bacolod City. However, the case proceeds with this discussion: To compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established. The witnesses in the case are fearful of their lives. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of this fear, they may either refuse to testify or testify falsely to save their lives.
Right of bail
The bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing.
Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a 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 the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground.
Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true. This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt. It does not suffice, as asserted herein, that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. (People vs. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981)
0
Comments
