Payao v. Lesaca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gregoria Payao was charged with murder in the justice of the peace court of San Jacinto, Province of Masbate. Following a preliminary investigation, she was granted provisional release upon posting a P20,000 bond. The provincial fiscal subsequently filed an information in the Court of First Instance, accusing Payao of murder with aggravating circumstances of premeditation and treachery, and moved to cancel the bond, asserting that the proof of guilt was strong and that the fiscal had not been heard on the bail application. Procedural History: The petitioner opposed the fiscal's motion to cancel her bond. The respondent judge, Juan G. Lesaca, heard the parties and granted the fiscal's motion, ordering Payao's confinement in the provincial jail. Payao moved for reconsideration, alternatively requesting a new bail amount, but this was denied. The respondent judge reiterated his order for confinement pending the case. The Petition: Payao filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the respondent judge to determine whether the proof of guilt was evident or the presumption of guilt strong, to ascertain if the offense was bailable. She also sought an order to refrain from placing her in jail pending the mandamus determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that mandamus would not lie to control discretionary actions and that the respondent judge had acted within his authority by canceling the bond based on the evidence presented and the lack of proffer of proof from the petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in canceling the petitioner's bail bond without conducting a judicial investigation to determine if the proof of guilt was strong. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the respondent judge to pass upon the question of bail.
Ruling
The petition is denied with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in canceling the petitioner's bail bond without conducting a judicial investigation to determine if the proof of guilt was strong: The Court held that while a judge is under a legal obligation to receive evidence on the question of bail when properly applied for, this obligation does not necessitate a full-blown judicial investigation in every instance. In the present case, the petitioner failed to present or offer any evidence when the motion for cancellation of the bond was heard, and again failed to do so when she moved for reconsideration and alternatively prayed for a new bond. The respondent judge was therefore justified in exercising his discretion based on the facts available and properly brought to his attention, which included the evidence from the preliminary investigation and the evidence in the possession of the provincial fiscal. The explanation for the absence of witnesses was not accompanied by a formal request for a postponement or an opportunity to present them, which was never denied by the court. The respondent judge's conclusion that the evidence of guilt was strong was an exercise of his discretionary authority under the law, and thus, mandamus will not lie to control such discretionary action. The ruling in Montalbo vs. Santamaria was cited by the petitioner, but the Court clarified that in that case, evidence was presented, unlike in the present case. The Court reiterated that mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action, as established in U.S. vs. Babasa. On the issue of whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the respondent judge to pass upon the question of bail: The Court found that the respondent judge did, in fact, pass upon the question of bail. He considered the fiscal's showing of strong evidence of guilt and the absence of any proffer of evidence from the accused. Based on these considerations, he exercised his discretion by canceling the bond and ordering confinement. Therefore, the premise of the petition for mandamus, which is that the judge failed to act on the bail issue, is incorrect. The judge acted, and his action was discretionary. As mandamus cannot control discretionary acts, the petition must fail. The constitutional provision and General Orders No. 58 clearly state that bail is a matter of right except for capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. The determination of whether the evidence is strong falls within the judge's discretion, which must be exercised judiciously. In this instance, the judge exercised his discretion, and the petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds or evidence to warrant the intervention of a writ of mandamus.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action of a judge in matters of bail, especially when the accused fails to present or offer evidence to prove her right to bail.