People v.
Donato
G.R. No. 79269
June 5, 1991
FACTS:
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
o Solicitor General
o Filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the order of
respondent judge dated July 7, 1987 and the subsequent order dated July 30, 1987.
Respondents:
o Hon. Procoro DONATO (Presiding Judge RTC Branch XII, Manila)
o Rodolfo C. SALAS ("Commander Bilog")
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Oct. 2, 1986 (original information filed); Oct. 26, 1986 - Salas and co-accused charged for the
crime of rebellion (under Article 134, in relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code)
(Criminal Case no. 86-48926)
Oct. 3, 1986 - Petition for habeas corpus for private respondent and his co-accused was filed
with this Court
o October 16, 1986: Dismissed based on agreement of parties under which herein
private respondent "will remain in legal custody and will face trial before the court
having custody over his person," warrants of arrest of his co-accused are deemed
recalled; they shall be immediately released but shall submit themselves to the court
having jurisdiction over their person
Nov. 7, 1986: Private respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information
o Petitioner filed an Opposition citing that in the Joint Manifestation and Motion (Oct.
14, 1986) private respondent categorically conceded that he "will remain in legal
custody and face trial"
May 9, 1987: Private respondent filed petition for bail
o May 27, 1986: Petitioner opposed under the grounds that rebellion became a capital
offense under provisions of P.D. nos 1996, 942 and 1834, by imposing the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death, therefore the accused is no longer entitled to bail as
evidence of his guilt is strong
June 5, 1987 - EO No. 187 repealing and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the
Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. Thus, original penalty for
rebellion, prison mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.00 was restored.
o July 7, 1987: Respondent Judge granted private respondent's petition for bail, fixed
the bond at 30,000.00
o Petitioner contends it would be dangerous to grant bail to private respondent
considering his stature in the CPP-NPA hierarchy
Judge: "Such fear cannot be reason to deny him bail. For the law is very
explicit that when it comes to bailable offenses an accused is entitled as a matter
of right to bail. Dura lex sed lex."
o July 17, 1987 - Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration; includes
facts pointing to the inevitability that the private respondent will evade the conditions of
his bail.
July 30, 1987 - Respondent judge DENIES motion for consideration due to
lack of merit but shall reconsider motion to increase the amount of bail
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the right to bail may, under certain circumstances, be denied to a person who is
charged with an otherwise bailable offense
2. Whether such right may be waived
HOLDING
1. Held.
o Purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and
yet secure his appearance in trial; presupposes that the person applying for it should be
in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of liberty
o The prosecution argued that Salas is estopped from filing bail because he has waived
his right to bail when he withdrew his petition or habeas corpus as a sign of agreement
that he will be held in custody.
2. Held.
o Court recognizes waivers of constitutional rights (unreasonable searches and
seizures, right to counsel and to remain silent, right to be heard)
JUDGMENT:
Orders of respondent judge are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE
o Right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived.
o Respondent Judge clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the
private respondent.
o The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right to bail when he withdrew his petition for
the issuance of the WoHC.
o The contention of the defense that Salas merely agreed to be in custody and that
the same does not constitute a waiver of his right to bail is not tenable. His waiver to
such right is justified by his act of withdrawing his petition for WoHC.
