2.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes a person who committed
the crime of Murder with a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
3. Section 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court states that, "No person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when evidence of
guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. This provision is based on Section 13, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, which reads: "All persons, except those charged with offenses
possible by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is existing, shall,
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of the habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required."
5. Nevertheless, the "NO BAIL" recommendation of the prosecutor per se
must not be construed by this Honourable Court that the evidence of guilt
of the accused Lloyd Lancer Gonzaga is strong. The manner of determining
whether or not evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion that
remains with the judge. Such discretion must be sound and exercised
within reasonable bounds. Finally, it must stressed that the judge is not
bound by the prosecutor's recommendation.
6. Under the present rules, a hearing on an application for bail is
mandatory. Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, the prosecutor
should be given reasonable notice of hearing, or at least recommendation
on the matter must be sought. In case an application for bail is filed, the
judge is entrusted to observe the following duties:
i. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify
the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to
submit his recommendation;
ii. Where bail is a matter, of discretion, conduct a hearing of the
application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to
present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the
purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion;
iii. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the
summary of evidence of the prosecution; and
iv. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused
upon the approval of the bail board. Otherwise the bail should be denied.
Te vs. Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1285, January 21, 2002, 374 SCRA 130.

7. Based on the above-cited procedure and requirements, after the

hearing, the court's order granting or refusing bail must contain summary
of the evidence for the prosecution which is comprehensive and usually
brief abstract or digest of a text or statement. Based on the summary of
evidence, the judge formulates his own conclusion of whether such
evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. (Mabutas v.
Perello, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1817, RTJ-04-****, June 08, 2005)

8. The only exception is in the case of a capital offense when the evidence
of guilt is strong, a matter which the prosecution is duty-bound to establish
and prove in a hearing for said purpose. Thus:
 "Since the right to bail partly depends on the quantum of the
evidence of guilt, Marcos vs. Cruz (67 Phil. 83) established the rule that the
prosecution has the burden of proving the non-existence of the right to
bail. The Anglo-Saxon rule that presentment of indictment raises
presumption of guilt and destroys presumption of innocence was adjudged
inapplicable in the Philippines where the accused does not enjoy the
benefit of a grand jury hearing (Cardines vs. Rosete, 242 SCRA 557). The
prosecution must show that there is strong evidence of guilt of capital
offense. Evidence characterized merely as "sufficient" does not satisfy the
constitutional requirement (Enage vs. Warden of Davao City, 82 Phil. 23)."
(underscoring ours). Moreover, simply because the prosecution
recommended "No Bail" in the case does not mean that accused's right to
bail has already been denied. The denial of accused's right to bail must be
through a summary hearing whereby the prosecutor must prove the
existence of strong evidence against the accused. Otherwise, accused's
right to bail must be uphold.