People v. Recto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information for Murder was filed against petitioner Reynaldo Arbas Recto (Recto) for the death of Margie Carlosita (Carlosita), alleging that Recto, armed with a hard object, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, attacked and hit Carlosita, causing her instantaneous death. Procedural History: Recto's initial Petition for Bail was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on April 11, 2014, finding the evidence of guilt strong based on the testimony of prosecution witness Joshua Emmanuel Rabillas (Rabillas), son of Carlosita. Recto's Demurrer to Evidence was also denied by the RTC on December 22, 2015. Subsequently, Recto filed a Motion to Fix Bail on April 27, 2016, arguing that the prosecution's evidence only supported a charge of Homicide, not Murder, citing Rabillas' testimony that Carlosita was hit by a bottle during a quarrel over money. The RTC denied this motion on June 8, 2016, reiterating its impression that the evidence of guilt was strong and that Recto had not taken the witness stand to show otherwise. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Recto then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA, in a Decision dated June 29, 2017, affirmed the denial of Recto's Motion to Fix Bail, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC and deferring to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility. The CA dismissed the case. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on January 11, 2018. Recto filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Recto's petition for certiorari. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Recto's Motion to Fix Bail, specifically considering the change in circumstances after the prosecution rested its case and the argument that the evidence only supported a conviction for Homicide.
Ruling
The Petition is meritorious. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Bacoor City, Branch 89 is ORDERED to fix the bail of Reynaldo Arbas Recto in relation to Criminal Case No. B-2011-226.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Recto's petition for certiorari: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy when a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Grave abuse of discretion signifies an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, or a whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power amounting to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The CA erred in upholding the RTC's denial. On the issue of whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Fix Bail, specifically considering the change in circumstances after the prosecution rested its case and the argument that the evidence only supported a conviction for Homicide: In this case, the RTC's denial of the Motion to Fix Bail amounted to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law, thus constituting grave abuse of discretion. While Recto was initially charged with Murder, an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, and thus bail could be denied if evidence of guilt was strong, the situation changed after the prosecution rested its case. Recto filed a Motion to Fix Bail on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecution could only convict him of Homicide, not Murder. The RTC denied this motion, reiterating its earlier finding that the evidence of guilt was strong. This reiteration, without re-evaluating the evidence in light of the argument that it only supported Homicide, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court found merit in Recto's claim that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of Rabillas, could at best only convict him of Homicide. Rabillas testified that his mother and Recto had an argument prior to her death, and that Recto hit her. Jurisprudence dictates that treachery cannot be appreciated if the accused did not make preparations to kill in a manner that insures commission of the killing or makes it impossible for the victim to retaliate. Mere suddenness of an attack is insufficient if the mode adopted does not prove a conscious intent to insure the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. The Court cited People v. Rivera, which held that treachery is not present when the killing was preceded by a heated argument, as the accused, filled with anger and rage, had no time to reflect on his actions and did not consciously adopt a mode of attack to insure the killing without risk. Furthermore, the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were also negated. For evident premeditation, there must be a sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its execution for reflection. For abuse of superior strength, there must be evidence that the assailants consciously sought the advantage or deliberately intended to take advantage of it. The prosecution's evidence, showing an argument preceding the killing, did not establish these circumstances. Therefore, the RTC should have determined whether the evidence of guilt was strong for Murder, as opposed to simply determining if the evidence of responsibility for the death was strong. As the evidence of Recto's guilt for Murder was not strong, the RTC should have granted Recto's Motion to Fix Bail.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to fix bail, when the prosecution's evidence, at best, only supports a charge of homicide and not murder, constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as the evidence of guilt for murder is not strong.