G.R. No. L-10724
April 21, 1958
Facts
Defendants were charged with murder. The bail for was fixed by the court at P30,000 as recommended by the provincial fiscal.
Thereafter, defendant Talantor filed with the court an urgent motion praying that the amount of the bond fixed for his provisional liberty be reduced from P30,000 to P14,000 in order to enable him to go on bail. The motion setting the hearing for the reduction of bail in the morning of the same date, contains a notification to the provincial fiscal. However, the provincial fiscal was actually notified at 9:40 o’clock in the morning of the same day of the hearing for the reduction of bail.
Despite this lack of due notice, the court promptly granted the motion for the reduction of bail. The provincial fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the reduction of the bail to P14,000 on the ground that it is irregular because no proper notice of the hearing of the motion for such reduction was given to him as required by the rule to enable him to prove that there exist strong evidence which would warrant the denial of the motion. The motion was denied, hence this appeal.
Issue
Whether or not it is required that a notice of hearing for application for the reduction of bail shall be given to the prosecutor.
Held
YES.
The Rules of Court make it a duty for a movant to serve notice of his motion on all parties concerned at least three days before the hearing thereof (Section 4, Rule 26). This requirement is more imperative in a criminal case. If a person is accused of a capital offense wherein a case of admission to bail is a matter of discretion, the granting of bail can only be exercised after the fiscal has been heard regarding the nature of the evidence he has in his possession. Thus, it is provided that “When admission to bail is a matter of discretion the court must require that reasonable notice of the hearing of the application for bail be given to the fiscal.”
In this case, Talantor is charged with a capital offense. While the fiscal fixed a bail of P30,000 for his provisional liberty, its further reduction could not be granted without hearing from the provincial fiscal. Considering that Talantor did not serve notice of his motion to reduce bail on the provincial fiscal at least three days before the hearing thereof and the court failed to require that a reasonable notice thereof be given to said fiscal, it is evident that the court acted improperly in reducing the bail without giving the fiscal an opportunity to be heard.
Hence, the order reducing the bond of Talantor to P14,000, as well as that approving the bail bond as thus reduced, are hereby set aside.