This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-11-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Judge Buaya further argued that in granting the ex-parte motion, he was merely correcting a reversible error. Believing that the offense committed was bailable in nature, he opined that when the investigating prosecutor revoked the bail already posted by the accused, the prosecutor gravely violated the accused's constitutional right to bail. Judge Buaya firmly relied on the previous order of the investigating MTC judge who, according to him, correctly fixed the amount of bail. Thus, conducting a bail hearing on the ex-parte motion was no longer necessary. Even assuming, however, that the previous order of the investigating MTC judge was correct in granting bail to the accused, reliance on a previous order granting bail does not justify the absence of a hearing in a subsequent petition for bail.[29] | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The Revised Rules of Court provides "No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal action."[18] In such case, a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, must actually be conducted to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.[19] At the hearing, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong.[20] | |||||