The document discusses a case where a man was charged with parricide for the death of his mother. The court initially granted bail but it was later lifted. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial grant of bail was invalid as there was no evaluation of evidence and the time between the bail motion and order was too short.
The document discusses a case where a man was charged with parricide for the death of his mother. The court initially granted bail but it was later lifted. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial grant of bail was invalid as there was no evaluation of evidence and the time between the bail motion and order was too short.
The document discusses a case where a man was charged with parricide for the death of his mother. The court initially granted bail but it was later lifted. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial grant of bail was invalid as there was no evaluation of evidence and the time between the bail motion and order was too short.
The document discusses a case where a man was charged with parricide for the death of his mother. The court initially granted bail but it was later lifted. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial grant of bail was invalid as there was no evaluation of evidence and the time between the bail motion and order was too short.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
NARCISO VS CRUZ GR No 134504, March 17, 2000
After conducting a preliminary investigation on the death of Corazon Sta. Romana-Narciso, City Prosecutor Dimaranan Vidal of Quezon City filed an information for parricide against Joselito Narciso before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Failing before DOJ, Joselito filed an “Omnibus Motion for Reinvestigation and to Lift Warrant of Arrest.” His motion was granted and the case was set for reinvestigation by another prosecutor, Asst. City Prosecutor Lydia Navarro but later on, found no reason to disturb the findings of the previous prosecutor and recommended the remand of the case for arraignment and trial. Accused filed an Urgent Ex- Parte to Allow Accused Joselito Narciso to Post Bail. The Public Prosecutor registered no objection and said motion was granted on the same day, allowing accused to post bail at P150,000.00. On the contrary, the private prosecutor representing private complainant Flor Marie Sta. Romana-Cruz, the sister of Corazon, filed an “Urgent Motion to lift Order Allowing Accused to Post Bail.” Arraignment was conducted and the case was set for hearing but private complainant through counsel filed her opposition to the motion to expunge filed by the accused. Not obtaining any resolution on her Motion, private complainant filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA and granted the same. Hence, recourse to the SC via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of bail was valid RULING: NO. The grant of bail by Executive Judge Santiago was laced with grave abuse of discretion and the CA was correct in reversing him. Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides: “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.” Furthermore, Section 7, Article 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended, also provides: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.” Although petitioner was charged with parricide which is punishable with reclusion perpetua, he argued before the CA that he was entitled to bail because the evidence of his guilt was not strong. He contended that the prosecutor’s conformity to his Motion for Bail was tantamount to a finding that the prosecution evidence against him was not strong. The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that there was no basis for such finding, since no hearing had been conducted on the application for bail — summary or otherwise. The appellate court found that only ten minutes had elapsed between the filing of the Motion by the accused and the Order granting bail, a lapse of time that could not be deemed sufficient for the trial court to receive and evaluate any evidence. The courts grant or refusal of bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution, on the basis of which should be formulated the judge’s own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. The summary thereof is considered an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate the grant or the denial of the application for bail. The petition is denied and the assailed decision affirmed.
