Apao v. Tizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners were charged with double murder in a complaint filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur. The complaint was dismissed. Subsequently, a second complaint for the same offense was filed against the same parties. After arrest and waiver of preliminary investigation, the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance. Procedural History: Petitioners filed an urgent motion for bail in the Court of First Instance. The respondent judge denied the motion, citing its premature filing as no information had yet been filed by the Provincial Fiscal. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioners urged the Provincial Fiscal's office to expedite the filing of the information, but it was delayed due to the prosecution witnesses residing in far-away municipalities. The Petition: Petitioners filed an original petition for mandamus and habeas corpus seeking to compel the respondents to act on their motion for bail. The Supreme Court ordered the respondent judge to expeditiously hear and resolve the motion for bail. Subsequently, an information was filed, and the respondent judge issued an order denying the motion for bail.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus and habeas corpus had become moot and academic. Whether the denial of the motion for bail was proper.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Court found that the present case had become moot and academic. This was due to the subsequent filing of an information in the Court of First Instance charging the petitioners with double murder. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had already issued a resolution directing the respondent judge to expeditiously hear and resolve the motion for bail. The subsequent denial of the motion for bail by the respondent judge rendered the original petition for mandamus and habeas corpus unnecessary and without further purpose. The purpose of the original petition was to compel action on the bail motion, and that action, albeit a denial, had already been taken by the trial court. Therefore, the extraordinary remedies sought were no longer available to address a situation that had already been resolved by the lower court. On the denial of the motion for bail: While the petition was dismissed on the ground of mootness, the Court's resolution directing the expeditious hearing of the bail motion and the subsequent denial by the respondent judge indicate that the procedural path for addressing bail had been followed. The initial denial was based on the absence of an information, which was a procedural prerequisite for the trial court to formally consider the bail application. Once the information was filed, the court was then empowered to hear and decide the motion on its merits, which it did.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus and habeas corpus seeking resolution of a motion for bail becomes moot and academic when an information is subsequently filed and the court proceeds to hear the bail motion.