CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 
____________________
 
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443. January 11, 2016.*
(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3521-RTJ)
 
ARMANDO M. BALANAY, complainant, vs. JUDGE
JULIANA ADALIM-WHITE, Regional Trial Court, Branch
5, Eastern Samar, respondent.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Bail; Bail hearing is

necessary even if the prosecution does not interpose any objection
or leaves the application for bail to the sound discretion of the
court.—It is basic that bail hearing is necessary even if the
prosecution does not interpose any objection or leaves the
application for bail to the

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

sound discretion of the court. Thus, in Villanueva v. Judge

Buaya, 635 SCRA 472 (2010), therein respondent judge was held
administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for granting
an ex parte motion for bail without conducting a hearing.
Stressing the necessity of bail hearing, this Court pronounced
that: The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of a
bail hearing in petitions for bail. Where bail is a matter of
discretion, the grant or the denial of bail hinges on the issue of
whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong
and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is
a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In
order for the judge to properly exercise this discretion, he must
first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt
is strong. This discretion lies not in the determination of whether
or not a hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and
evaluation of the weight of the prosecution’s evidence of guilt
against the accused. In any event, whether bail is a matter of
right or discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is required in
order for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section
9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. This
Court has repeatedly held in past cases that even if the
prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an
application for bail of an accused, the court may still require the
prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain, not only the
strength of the State’s evidence, but also the adequacy of the
amount of bail.
Same; Same; Same; In People v. Hon. Maceda, 323 SCRA 45
(2000), reiterated in Trillanes IV v. Judge Pimentel, Sr., 556
SCRA 471 (2008), the Supreme Court (SC) held that “all prisoners
whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence
cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or
occupation or hold office, elective or appointive, while in
detention.”—A fortiori, respondent is administratively liable for
gross ignorance of the law for granting ex parte motions to allow
Adamas’ temporary liberty without setting the same for hearing.
If hearing is indispensable in motions for bail, more so in this case
where the motions for the temporary liberty of Adamas were filed
without offering any bail or without any prayer that he be
released on recognizance. Besides, the reasons relied upon in said
motions — to allow Adamas to attend the Sangguniang Bayan
sessions — had already been rebuked by this Court. In People v.
Hon. Maceda, 323 SCRA 45 (2000), reiterated in Trillanes IV v.
Judge Pimentel Sr., 556 SCRA 471 (2008), this Court

 
 
3

VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 3

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

held that “all prisoners whether under preventive detention

or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor
engage in any business or occupation or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention.”
Same; Same; Same; It is basic that bail cannot be allowed
without prior hearing.—That the prosecution has already filed
affidavits of desistance and that, to the opinion of respondent, the
accused is not a flight risk, do not justify noncompliance with
procedural rules. It is basic that bail cannot be allowed without
prior hearing. It is also basic that litigious motions that do not
contain a notice of hearing are nothing but a useless piece of
paper which the court should not act upon. These rules are so
elementary that not to know them constitutes gross ignorance of
the law. In Atty. Adalim-White v. Judge Bugtas, 475 SCRA 175
(2005), (where incidentally herein respondent was the
complainant), we elucidated on gross ignorance of the law as
follows: We have held time and again that a judge is called upon
to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural rules. It is imperative that he be conversant with
basic legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative
doctrines. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his
passion for truth, to the end that he be the personification of
justice and the rule of law. When the law is sufficiently basic, a
judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than
that would be gross ignorance of the law.
Administrative Law; Gross Misconduct; Respondent’s act of
directing her subordinate to alter the Transcript of Stenographic
Notes (TSN) by incorporating therein statements pertaining to
substantial matters that were not actually made during the
hearing constitutes gross misconduct which warrants
administrative sanction.—To determine the accuracy and
correctness of said TSN, the investigating justice directed two
stenographic reporters of Court of Appeals, Cebu Station to make
their own transcription of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.
10-07 held on July 22, 2010 based on audio records. From their
transcriptions, the above quoted exchanges between respondent
and Prosecutor Kho do not exist. Indubitably, respondent tried to
make it appear that she and Prosecutor Kho made the above
quoted statements during the proceedings held on July 22, 2010
when in truth no such statements were actually made. A TSN “is
supposed to be a faithful and exact recording of all mat-

 
 
4

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

ters that transpired during a court proceeding.” Respondent’s

act of directing her subordinate to alter the TSN by incorporating
therein statements pertaining to substantial matters that were
not actually made during the hearing constitutes gross
misconduct which warrants administrative sanction.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Ignorance of the Law and Serious Misconduct.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
  Romulo T. Arellano for complainant.
  Singco and Cagara Law Offices for respondent.

RESOLUTION
 
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
 
This is an administrative complaint for gross ignorance
of the law and serious misconduct filed by complainant
Armando M. Balanay against respondent Judge Juliana
Adalim-White.
 
Factual Antecedents
 
On September 20, 2010, complainant filed before the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a verified
Affidavit-Complaint1 charging respondent with gross
ignorance of the law for allowing Isidoro N. Adamas, Jr.
(Adamas) six furloughs despite being charged with murder
in Criminal Case No. 10-07, a non-bailable offense. Worse,
respondent granted Adamas’ motions without requiring the
prosecution to comment or giving it opportunity to be heard
thereon.
Complainant likewise charged respondent with serious
misconduct in precipitately dismissing Criminal Case No.
10-07

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 1-6.

 
 
5

VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 5

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

by declaring that the prosecution had no witnesses to

present when the records showed otherwise. According to
the complainant, the prosecution witnesses were not able
to attend the hearing on July 22, 2010 because they were
not duly notified. In fact, he and his son were willing to
testify provided they are placed under the witness
protection program.
Complainant further claimed that respondent falsified
the July 22, 2010 transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) in
Criminal Case No. 10-07. He averred that during the
hearing held on said date, the prosecution made a
reservation to present additional witnesses. Respondent,
however, instructed her court stenographer, Prescila V.
Mosende (Mosende), to delete from said TSN such
reservation and insert therein other statements which were
not made during the said hearing. In support of his
allegations, complainant submitted a piece of paper2
containing respondent’s handwritten notes that were
incorporated in the July 22, 2010 TSN.
Complainant sought the dismissal of respondent from
the service with forfeiture of her retirement benefits.
In her Comment,3 respondent admitted that she
instructed Mosende to correct the July 22, 2010 TSN to
make it more coherent and accurate. She claimed that the
changes were based on her own notes which Mosende
adopted after verifying them from the taped recordings of
the proceedings. Respondent maintained that the
prosecution never made any reservation to present
additional witnesses.
Respondent explained that she granted Adamas six
furloughs based on the affidavits of desistance subscribed
before Prosecutor Raquel G. Kho (Prosecutor Kho) which
were already attached to the records of Criminal Case No.
10-07. She also insisted that Adamas is not a flight risk
because he voluntarily surrendered himself to the police.

_______________

2  Id., at p. 35.
3  Id., at pp. 43-48.

 
 
6

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint

and that complainant be cited for contempt.
On June 15, 2011, this Court referred this
administrative matter to the Court of Appeals, Cebu
Station for raffle among the Justices therein and for the
Justice to whom this case would be assigned to conduct an
investigation and submit a report and recommendation.4
 
Report and recommendation of
Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy
 
On July 31, 2013, Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy
(Justice Diy) submitted her Final Report and
Recommendations.5 She opined that respondent is guilty of
gross ignorance of the law for allowing Adamas several
furloughs based on motions that did not contain a notice of
hearing, did not comply with the
3-day notice rule, and were not set for hearing. She,
however, recommended that respondent be absolved from
the charge of serious misconduct in dismissing the case for
want of proof of corruption or willful intent to violate the
law. She noted that the propriety of such dismissal was
elevated to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for
Certiorari. With regard the alleged falsification of the TSN,
Justice Diy recommended its dismissal for failure to
formally offer in evidence the subject July 22, 2010 TSN.
Nonetheless, she found respondent guilty of simple
misconduct considering that the records amply show that
respondent attempted to alter the questioned TSN.
   Justice Diy recommended that respondent be fined in
the amounts of P30,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law
and P10,000.00 for simple misconduct.
On November 11, 2013, we referred this administrative
matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation.

_______________

4  Id., at p. 77.
5  Id., at pp. 824-865.

 
 
7

VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 7

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

OCA’s Recommendation
 
In its Memorandum6 dated May 21, 2014, the OCA
agreed with Justice Diy that respondent patently and
inexcusably transgressed the rules on motions and for
which misfeasance she is guilty of gross ignorance of the
law. With regard the charge of serious misconduct, the
OCA found substantial evidence to support the same. For
the OCA —
 
the copy of the altered TSN and the scratch paper
containing the statements to be inserted in the TSN
that were handwritten by respondent Judge herself
attached to the complaint-affidavit, the testimony of
Mosende that it was [the] respondent Judge who
ordered the insertion of the statements, the admission
of [the] respondent Judge x  x  x that she ordered the
insertion of the said statements, and the transcription
of the stenographers of the Court of Appeals of the
hearing covered by the altered TSN.7
 
sufficiently established that respondent caused the
unauthorized alteration of the TSN which amounts to
serious misconduct.
Moreover, the OCA noted that this is not the first time
that respondent has been found administratively liable,
viz.:
 
In A.M. No. RTJ-08-2147 [formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I.
No. 05-2365-RTJ] (Mayor Diego T. Lim v. Judge
Juliana A. White, Regional Trial Court, Br. 5, Oras,
Eastern Samar), respondent judge was charged with
impropriety and found guilty of conduct unbecoming
under Section 1, Rule 140 for which she was
reprimanded and warned. In A.M. No. RTJ-14-2474
[formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3777-RTJ] (Vilma Sulse,
 et al. v. Judge Juliana Adalim White, Regional Trial
Court, Br. 5, Oras, Eastern Samar), respon-

_______________

6  Id., at pp. 868-878.

7  Id., at p. 876.

 
 

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

dent Judge was again found guilty of impropriety

and fined ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and sternly
warned.8
 
The OCA, thus, recommended that respondent be found
guilty of gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct,
and that she be suspended from office without salary and
other benefits for six months.9

Issue
 
Is respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and
serious misconduct?
 
Our Ruling
 
We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA,
except as to penalty.

Respondent is guilty of gross

ignorance of the law.
 
Respondent admits allowing Adamas six consecutive
furloughs to attend regular sessions of the Sangguniang
Bayan of the Municipality of Oras, Eastern Samar based on
very urgent motions that did not contain notice of hearing
and were not heard in open court.  Thus:
ATTY. ARELLANO:
Now, you said that furlough was granted by [you] on June 18, 2010, right?
JUDGE WHITE:
Yes, sir.
ATTY. ARELLANO:
Did you hear that motion first before you granted it?

_______________

8  Id., at p. 878.
9  Id.
  
 

VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 9

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

JUDGE WHITE:
No, sir.
Q: Why not?
A: I did not hear it anymore because there is already an affidavit of
desistance coming from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and so I
feel that the evidence is not strong anymore and I examined the
circumstances of the accused, Mr. Isidoro Adamas. The offense was
committed on May 28, he surrendered to the authorities on June 1 and
the information was filed. To me he was not a flight risk.10
ATTY. ARELLANO:
When you read the first motion asking for a furlough on June 18, 2010, you
will agree with me that it no longer occurred to your mind to ask the
prosecution, specifically Public Prosecutor Raquel G. Kho, to comment
or opposed tet [sic] said motion. You did not ask Public Prosecutor Kho
to comment, is that right?
A: I did not ask him to comment, but we met [at] the lobby and we talked
about [those] furloughs and the affidavit of desistance.
Q: Madame Witness, you are a Regional Trial Court Judge x  x  x Are you
saying that a casual meeting outside the courtroom at the lobby will
suffice? Is that what you mean?
A: No, but the affidavit of desistance was subscribed by Prosecutor Kho.
Q: I am just asking. Is that what you mean that it is sufficient already?
Yes or no?
A: Yes, I supposed so because I did that.
x x x x
Q: So that is the practice of others in your Court to notify the other parties
of the pending motion even

_______________

10  Final Report and Recommendations, pp. 15-16; Id., at pp. 838-839.

 
 

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

outside [your] courtroom even if you met the other party

casually in the lobby of the court? (sic)
A: Usually, we notify them formally but it doesn’t
prevent me especially lawyers, fiscals to talk with them.
x x x x
ATTY. ARELLANO:
 Now, Madame Witness, being a judge, are you aware of
the provisions of the Rules of Court that a notice which
does not contain proof of service to other parties and in case
if it is litigious does not contain (sic) notice of hearing is a
mere scrap of paper?
A: That is correct[,] sir.
x x x x
Q: x x x Would that be enough for you to disregard the
Rules of Court that a motion which does not contain service
to the other party or a notice of hearing specifically in this
particular criminal case wherein the accused was charge
(sic) of (sic) a capital offense of murder. Was the existence
of the affidavit of desistance enough for you to disregard
the application of the Rules of Court?
A: No, they were only asking for a furlough and I felt
that Isidoro Adamas must attend that session because he is
a public official.
Q: I understand that he needed to attend. Now when you
felt that he needed to attend the session, was that also
enough for you to disregard the rules that a motion must
contain proof of service to the other party and a notice of
hearing? Was that enough for you to disregard those rules?
A: Yes, I considered the fact that Mr. Isidoro Adamas is
a public official. So he has to work.11

_______________

11  Id., at pp. 18-22; id., at pp. 841-845.

 
 
11

VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 11

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

x x x x
Q: Madam Witness, you will agree with me that this motion was filed on
June 18, 2010 at 8:50 a.m., as shown by the rubber stamp marking.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And considering that the movant accused wanted to attend the session
of the Sangguniang Bayan of Oras, Eastern Samar on June 18, 2010
also on that very same day at 9 o’clock in the morning you
immediately granted this motion in your Order dated June 18, 2010
given in chambers before 9 a.m.?
A: That is correct. There is no time indicated here. So, I don’t know. I
cannot recall now, but that is the Order.12

 
It is basic, however, that bail hearing is necessary even
if the prosecution does not interpose any objection or leaves
the application for bail to the sound discretion of the
court.13 Thus, in Villanueva v. Judge Buaya,14 therein
respondent judge was held administratively liable for gross
ignorance of the law for granting an ex parte motion for bail
without conducting a hearing. Stressing the necessity of
bail hearing, this Court pronounced that:
 
The Court has always stressed the indispensable
nature of a bail hearing in petitions for bail. Where
bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or the denial
of bail hinges on the issue of whether or not the
evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong and the
determination of whether or not the evidence is
strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains
with the judge. In order for the judge to properly
exercise this discretion, he must first conduct a
hearing to determine whether the evi-

_______________

12  Id., at p. 26; id., at p. 849.

13   Basco v. Rapatalo, 336 Phil. 214, 220-221; 269 SCRA 220, 235
(1997).
14  650 Phil. 9; 635 SCRA 472 (2010).

 
 
12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

dence of guilt is strong. This discretion lies not in

the determination of whether or not a hearing should
be held, but in the appreciation and evaluation of the
weight of the prosecution’s evidence of guilt against
the accused.
In any event, whether bail is a matter of right or
discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is required
in order for the court to consider the guidelines set
forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in
fixing the amount of bail. This Court has repeatedly
held in past cases that even if the prosecution fails to
adduce evidence in opposition to an application for
bail of an accused, the court may still require the
prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain,
not only the strength of the State’s evidence, but also
the adequacy of the amount of bail.15
 
A fortiori, respondent is administratively liable for gross
ignorance of the law for granting ex parte motions to allow
Adamas’ temporary liberty without setting the same for
hearing. If hearing is indispensable in motions for bail,
more so in this case where the motions for the temporary
liberty of Adamas were filed without offering any bail or
without any prayer that he be released on recognizance.
Besides, the reasons relied upon in said motions — to allow
Adamas to attend the Sangguniang Bayan sessions — had
already been rebuked by this Court. In People v. Hon.
Maceda16 reiterated in Trillanes IV v. Judge Pimentel,
Sr.,17 this Court held that “all prisoners whether under
preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot
practice their profession nor engage in any business or
occupation or hold office, elective or appointive, while in
detention.”
That the prosecution has already filed affidavits of
desistance18 and that, to the opinion of respondent, the
accused is

_______________

15  Id., at pp. 20-21; p. 485.

16  380 Phil. 1, 5; 323 SCRA 45, 48 (2000).
17  578 Phil. 1002, 1015; 556 SCRA 471, 484 (2008).
18  Rollo, pp. 380-383.

 
 

13

VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 13

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

not a flight risk, do not justify noncompliance with

procedural rules. It is basic that bail cannot be allowed
without prior hearing. It is also basic that litigious motions
that do not contain a notice of hearing are nothing but a
useless piece of paper which the court should not act upon.
These rules are so elementary that not to know them
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. In Atty. Adalim-
White v. Judge Bugtas19 (where incidentally herein
respondent was the complainant), we elucidated on gross
ignorance of the law as follows:
 
We have held time and again that a judge is called
upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance
with statutes and procedural rules. It is imperative
that he be conversant with basic legal principles and
be aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. He
should strive for excellence exceeded only by his
passion for truth, to the end that he be the
personification of justice and the rule of law. When
the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his
office to simply apply it; anything less than that
would be gross ignorance of the law. x x x

Respondent is guilty
of gross misconduct.
 
We also agree with the OCA that there is substantial
proof to hold respondent liable for gross misconduct even if
the altered TSN was not formally offered in evidence.
Respondent admitted in her Comment20 dated November
24, 2010 and Memorandum21 dated May 1, 2013 that she
instructed Mosende to make some changes in the July 22,
2010 TSN, viz.:

When the draft [TSN] of the July 22, 2010

proceedings was submitted for correction to
respondent by the court stenographer, Ms. Prescila
Mosende, the missing or

_______________

19  511 Phil. 615, 627; 475 SCRA 175, 188 (2005).

20  Rollo, pp. 43-48.
21  Id., at pp. 509-520.

 
 

14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

omitted statements were brought to her attention.

To rectify the errors in the draft, respondent showed
her notes to Ms. Mosende and later transcribed it for
the latter on another sheet of paper. Ms. Mosende
verified the corrections by referring it to her tape
recordings.22
 
The sheet of paper23 mentioned on respondent’s
Comment and Memorandum, on the other hand, contains
her handwritten notes that read as follows:
 
Court – What about this secret witness [whose
identity] you do not want to make known x x x.
Has an application for witness protection
program been applied with the DOJ?
Fiscal Kho – I believe not yet your honor. I myself
[do] not know his identity. Last night your honor
Fiscal Umil informed me of his plan that a
certain witness will be enrolled in the Witness
Protection Program.
Court – Why is there no formal notice to the Court?
Fiscal Kho – I just learned this last night during
the wake.
 
Upon the instructions of respondent, these notes were,
in turn, incorporated in the July 22, 2010 TSN and certified
as true and correct by Mosende.
To determine the accuracy and correctness of said TSN,
the investigating justice directed two stenographic
reporters24 of Court of Appeals, Cebu Station to make their
own transcription of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.
10-07 held on July 22, 2010 based on audio records. From
their transcriptions, the above quoted exchanges between
respondent and Prosecutor Kho do not exist.   Indubitably,
respondent tried to

_______________

22  Id., at p. 44.
23  Id., at p. 35.
24  Rossie Alesna-Maceda and Cresilda Dumaran.

 
 

15

VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 15

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

make it appear that she and Prosecutor Kho made the

above quoted statements during the proceedings held on
July 22, 2010 when in truth no such statements were
actually made.
A TSN “is supposed to be a faithful and exact recording
of all matters that transpired during a court proceeding.”25
Respondent’s act of directing her subordinate to alter the
TSN by incorporating therein statements pertaining to
substantial matters that were not actually made during the
hearing constitutes gross misconduct which warrants
administrative sanction.
 

Proper Penalty
 
The OCA recommended the penalty of suspension of six
months without salary and other benefits against
respondent. In Mayor Lim v. Judge White,26 however, we
reprimanded respondent for unbecoming conduct and
warned her that the commission of similar acts of
impropriety will be dealt with more severely. Then in Sulse
v. Judge White,27 we again found respondent guilty of
impropriety and conduct unbecoming of a judge and
imposed a penalty of fine of P10,000.00 with stern warning
that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with
more severely. Since respondent had previously been
adjudged guilty and penalized for various infractions, with
repeated warnings of more severe sanction in case of
repetition, we deem it appropriate to increase the
recommended penalty of six months suspension to one year
without salary and other benefits.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Juliana Adalim-
White GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

_______________
 25  Almario v. Resus, 376 Phil. 857, 867; 318 SCRA 742, 750 (1999).
26  A.M. No. RTJ-08-2147 [formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2365-RTJ],
November 10, 2008. (Minute Resolution)
27   A.M. No. RTJ-14-2374 [formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3777-RTJ],
February 3, 2014. (Minute Resolution)

 
 
16

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balanay vs. Adalim-White

and GROSS MISCONDUCT and SUSPENDS her

from office for one (1) year without salary and other
benefits, and STERNLY WARNS her that this Court will
not hesitate to impose the supreme penalty of dismissal
from the service, with all its accessory penalties, in case
she commits the same or other similar acts.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.

Judge Juliana Adalim-White suspended for one (1) year

without salary and other benefits for gross ignorance of the
law and gross misconduct, with stern warning of dismissal
from service with all accessory penalties in case of repetition
of similar acts.

Notes.—Under the present Rules of Court, notice and

hearing are required whether bail is a matter of right or
discretion. (Villanueva vs. Buaya, 635 SCRA 472 [2010])
The determination of whether the evidence of guilt is
strong, in this regard, is a matter of judicial discretion.
(People vs. De Gracia, 764 SCRA 479 [2015])
 
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.