The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
x x x
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) |
|---|
CFI issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. Armed with the above warrant, the Philippine Constabulary proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings made in a canefield yielded two common graves containing the 7 bodies.
Seven (7) separate complaints for murder were thus filed against Pablo Sola and 18 other persons before CFI of Kabankalan. The trial court ordered their arrest. However, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the court granted them the right to post bail. Pablo Sola and two others have since been released from detention. The witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized. At least 2 of the accused are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition, most of the accused remained at large. There had also been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses. Prosecution petitioned for a) change of venue for trial and b) cancellation of the bail bonds.
Issues:
Seven (7) separate complaints for murder were thus filed against Pablo Sola and 18 other persons before CFI of Kabankalan. The trial court ordered their arrest. However, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the court granted them the right to post bail. Pablo Sola and two others have since been released from detention. The witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized. At least 2 of the accused are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition, most of the accused remained at large. There had also been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses. Prosecution petitioned for a) change of venue for trial and b) cancellation of the bail bonds.
Issues:
1. Whether or not change of venue is proper
2. Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled for failure to abide by the basic requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is charged with a capital offense, prior to bail being granted.
2. Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled for failure to abide by the basic requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is charged with a capital offense, prior to bail being granted.
Held:
1. Yes. The Constitution is quite explicit. The Supreme Court could order "a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice." The exercise by this Honorable Court of its above constitutional power in this case will be appropriate. The witnesses in the case are fearful for their lives. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of fear, they may either refuse to testify or testimony falsely to save their lives. It may be added that there may be cases where the fear, objectively viewed, may, to some individuals, be less than terrifying, but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue.
2. Yes. Considering that bail was granted to the accused without hearing the prosecution, the bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing.
Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground.
Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true. This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt. It does not suffice, as asserted herein, that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. (People vs. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981)
1. Yes. The Constitution is quite explicit. The Supreme Court could order "a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice." The exercise by this Honorable Court of its above constitutional power in this case will be appropriate. The witnesses in the case are fearful for their lives. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of fear, they may either refuse to testify or testimony falsely to save their lives. It may be added that there may be cases where the fear, objectively viewed, may, to some individuals, be less than terrifying, but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue.
2. Yes. Considering that bail was granted to the accused without hearing the prosecution, the bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing.
Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground.
Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true. This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt. It does not suffice, as asserted herein, that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. (People vs. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981)
0 Comments
Post a Comment