311. Sule v.

Judge Biteng Ruling: YES

A.M. No. MTJ-95-1018 April 18, 1995 Ratio:
TOPIC: Aspects of the Right to Bail The judge did commit an error in hastily granting bail
to the accused without first allowing the prosecution to prove
Summary: their case. Bail in this case being a matter of discretion and not
This case is a complaint against the judge questioning a right the penalty being Reclusion Perpetua to Death. The
his decision to grant bail to the accused in a murder case prosecution should have been afforded ample opportunity to
without first holding a trial for the same as mandated by law. first prove that the accused should not have been given bail. In
The Court ruled that he did commit an error amounting to the case at bar the judge failed to give the prosecution ample
grave ignorance of the law because he freely admitted that he opportunity by denying them the trial required by law, thus
did not set a trial and he also failed to notify the prosecution depriving them of due process. It must be remembered that
about the said motion. when bail is matter of discretion the court is mandated by law
to first hold a trial for the said bail before the granting of the
Doctrine: same.
Bail not covered under the 1st paragraph of Section 13 is
a matter of discretion and the judge in this case is mandated to
first hold a trial for the bail before it is granted.
Facts:
Judge Biteng was the judge tasked to conduct the
preliminary investigations in the murder case of the child of
Sule. He found during the said investigation that there is a
strong evidence against the accused and recommended that bail
should not be allowed. A few days after, the accused then
asked for bail which Judge Biteng then granted without
conducting a hearing and notifying the prosecution of the same.
Relevant Issue:
Did the judge commit a gross ignorance of the law by
hastily granting bail to the accused in a murder without holding
a trial where the prosecution could prove the strength of the
evidence against the accused?