Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Dinapol V Babaldo DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Marieal Inot
    The judge erred in setting a motion for bail filed by accused persons for hearing because the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the accused. For a court to entertain a motion for bail, the accused must either have been arrested or voluntarily submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction. By setting the motion for hearing despite lacking jurisdiction, the judge disregarded the rules of procedure. The judge was warned that any future violations could result in more severe discipline.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dinapol V Babaldo DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Marieal Inot
    44 views2 pages
    The judge erred in setting a motion for bail filed by accused persons for hearing because the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the accused. For a court to entertain a motion for bail, the accused must either have been arrested or voluntarily submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction. By setting the motion for hearing despite lacking jurisdiction, the judge disregarded the rules of procedure. The judge was warned that any future violations could result in more severe discipline.

    Original Description:

    Dinapol vs Babaldo

    Original Title

    Dinapol v Babaldo DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The judge erred in setting a motion for bail filed by accused persons for hearing because the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the accused. For a court to entertain a motion for bail, the accused must either have been arrested or voluntarily submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction. By setting the motion for hearing despite lacking jurisdiction, the judge disregarded the rules of procedure. The judge was warned that any future violations could result in more severe discipline.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views2 pages

    Dinapol V Babaldo DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Marieal Inot
    The judge erred in setting a motion for bail filed by accused persons for hearing because the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the accused. For a court to entertain a motion for bail, the accused must either have been arrested or voluntarily submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction. By setting the motion for hearing despite lacking jurisdiction, the judge disregarded the rules of procedure. The judge was warned that any future violations could result in more severe discipline.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    A.M. No.

    RTJ-92-898 August 5, 1993


    EVANGELINE L. DINAPOL, complainant, 
    vs.
    JUDGE ISMAEL O. BALDADO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Bais City, respondent.

    FA CTS:

     An Information for Murder in Criminal Case No. 775-G (Rollo, 31-32) was filed against accused Crozoro Palermo and Jovy
    Palermo on 28 February 1992 by 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Diosdado Hermosa of Negros Oriental before the
    respondent Judge's sala (Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental), No bail was recommended .
     3 March 1992, the respondent Judge issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused.
     On 9 March 1992, before the trial court could acquire jurisdiction over their persons, accused filed through their counsel, the
    Paras and Associates law office, a motion to grant and fix bail which the respondent Judge set for hearing on 24 April 1992.
     On 10 April 1992, Evangeline Dinapol, the complaining witness and a sister of the victim in the murder case filed a vigorous
    opposition to the motion, in view thereof, the respondent Judge issued an order (a) denying the motion to grant bail on the
    ground that the court "has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused," (b) ordering the issuance of an alias
    warrant of arrest and (c) directing the PNP of Guihulngan "to exert utmost efforts for the arrest of the accused".
     On 28 April, 1992, accused through counsel filed an urgent motion for the reconsideration of the 24 April 1992 Order on the
    ground that "the accused are forthcoming, and are willing to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Court," which the trial
    judge grant the motion and fix bail for 7 May 1992 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning, subject to the condition that "the accused
    shall surrender to the custody of the court.
     On 7 May 1992, the accused failed to appear on the set date. The respondent Judge issued on the said date an order
    resetting, once again, the hearing of the motion for 30 June and 1 and 3 July 1992, , subject to the condition that "on or before
    June 30, 1992, accused shall have voluntarily surrendered and submitted themselves to the custody of this court [RTC]"
     The Prosecution filed on 24 June 1992 a "Motion Entreating Hon. Ismael O. Baldado to Consider Whether or Not to Continue
    Presiding Over the Above-Entitled Case" , is alleged therein that the respondent Judge had acted with patent bias and
    partiality in the accused's favor as may be gleaned from his (Judge's) actuations.
     In his comment, respondent Judge maintains that he had in fact denied in his 24 April 1992 Order the accused's motion for bail
    precisely because his court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused .

    ISSUE:
    1. WON the Judge erred in setting the motion for bail for hearing.
    2. WON the accused can file a motion for bail even if the court has not acquired jurisdiction over them.

    RULING:

    1. YES, the Judge has "committed a jurisdictional lapse in the procedure he adopted in setting the case for hearing the Motion to
    Bail filed by the counsel of the accused on the mere allegation that the accused are forthcoming and are willing to voluntarily
    submit to the jurisdiction of the court." (Office of the Court Administrator). Section 1, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court
    that an accused can move for the granting of bail only if the court has acquired jurisdiction over his person. It then
    recommends that the respondent Judge "be sternly admonished with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
    violation in the future will be dealt with more severely."

    Since the accused in Criminal Case No. 775-G were not arrested by virtue of both the original warrant arrest and the
    alias warrant of arrest, and did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court, they had no standing in
    court to file a motion for bail. Nor did the court have any business setting the same for hearing. By setting the said
    motion for hearing despite the fact that his court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused, the
    respondent Judge blatantly disregarded established rule and settled jurisprudence. While he subsequently rectified his error by
    denying the motion in his Order of 24 April 1992, he nevertheless backtracked by granting the motion for reconsideration and
    setting anew the hearing of the motion for bail this time with a warning to the prosecution that its failure to present evidence
    on the scheduled date "will be considered as lack of strength of its evidence."

    These acts of the respondent Judge compounded his already questionable disregard of the rule and doctrine aforecited. He
    opted to perpetuate his defiance thereto and experiment on a new procedure which we cannot sanction. According to Canon
    18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, a Judge violates his duty as a minister of justice if he seeks to do what he may personally
    consider substantial justice in a particular case and disregards the general law as he knows it to be binding on him.

    2. NO, it is axiomatic that a court cannot entertain an accused's motion or petition for bail unless he is in the custody of the law. 
    Bail  is defined Section 1, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court as "the security given for the release of a person in custody of
    the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the conditions"
    specified in Section 2 thereof. A person is considered to be  in the custody of the law(a) when he is arrested either by virtue of a
    warrant of arrest issued pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112, or even without a warrant under Section 5, Rule 113 in relation to
    Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court, or (b) when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
    court by surrendering to the proper authorities . Elsewise stated, the purpose of requiring bail is to relieve an accused from
    imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial (Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 [1975],
    citing Green vs. Petit, Sheriff, 54 N.E. 2d 281). Accordingly, it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free (Feliciano vs.
    Pasicolan, 2 SCRA 888 [1961], citing Manigbas vs. Luna, 52 O.G. 1405; see also Mendoza vs. Court of First Instance of Quezon, 51
    SCRA 369 [1973]). The right to bail is guaranteed by the Constitution.
    Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides in part that:

    All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua  when evidence of guilt is strong,
    shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. .
    ...

    Only those persons who have been either arrested, detained or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever have occasion to seek the
    benefits of said provision" (Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 [1945]). Thus, it logically follows that no petition for bail can be
    validly entertained for as long as the petitioner is NOT in the custody of the law. Since the accused in Criminal Case No. 775-G were
    not arrested by virtue of both the original warrant arrest and the alias warrant of arrest, and did not voluntarily submit to the
    jurisdiction of the trial court, they had no standing in court to file a motion for bail.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy