ALICIA A.

BAYLON, City Prosecutor of Dagupan City, complainant,

vs.
JUDGE DEODORO J. SISON, Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Dagupan City, Respondent.
A.M. No. 92-7-360-0
April 6, 1995

REGALADO, J.:

History of Facts:

Respondent judge was accused of Malfeasance in granting bail to the accused who was charged with
double murder. Prosecution was not given a notice atleast 3days before the scheduled hearing for bail in
violation of Rule 15, section 4 of the rules of court and filing the petition for bail has only 2 non-
oworking day interval from the schedule of the hearing. Moreover the prosecution also assails that they
were not given the chance to present evidence that strongly prove the guilt of the accused . Respondent
judge justifies not having committed grave abuse of discretion since the prosecution did not interpose
objection with his orders and the lack of previous notice was cured with the filing of motion for
reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge exercised abuse in discretion in the grant of bail to
the accused.

Held: The Supreme Court held that there was abuse in the discretion of the judge in granting
bail to the accused considering that the motion for bail was filed on a Saturday and the hearing
was immediately conducted on Monday thereby depriving the prosecution to make an
opposition thereto and violating the 3-day notice rule embodied in Rule 15, Sec. 4 of Rules of
Court. It is a well established rule of law that bail is not a matter of right and requires a hearing
where the accused is charged with an offense which is punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment. Respondent judge should have carefully scrutinized the validity
of petition for bail before making an outright grant of this motion.

A guided legal principle in the right to bail includes:

. . The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present evidence because by the
very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial
discretion is weighed against in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In other
words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines of procedural due
process, that is, after evaluation of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any order issued
in the absence thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim and caprice and
outright arbitrariness.