Atty.
Antonio Rivero - Philosophy of Law
Pio Duran v. Abad Santos
GR. No. L-99 | November 16, 1945
Jaranilla, J.
Facts:
Petitioner Pio Duran is a Filipino political prisoner under the custody
of the Director of Prisons in the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinglupa,
Rizal, for not less than three months, without any information filed
against him.
The Petitioner filed a petition in the People’s Court for his release on
bail, and the petitioner be released on P35,000 bail. However, on
October 12, 1945, after hearing the statements of Special Prosecutor V.
D. Carpio, in representation of the Solicitor General, and Atty.
Marciano Almario, counsel for the petitioner,the respondent judge
denied the petition for bail and refused to reconsider it by his order
issued on October 15, 1945.
According to the petitioner, the denial of the said petition is a blatant
violation of the Constitution of the Philippines and of section 19 of
Commonwealth Act No. 682, and that the respondent has committed
a great abuse of discretion for which petition has no other plain
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In an answer to the petition, the respondent judge denies the abuse of
discretion and states the reason for denying the petition for bail on
his order on October 16, 1945 and the basis is “The detainee's
adherence to the enemy as manifested by his utterances and activities
during the Japanese domination especially as Executive General of
the Makapili; as Director of General of the Kalibapi; as Vice-Minister
of State for Home Affairs; member of the Council of State; as member
of the National Assembly under the Japanese-sponsored Philippine
Republic and as President of the New Leaders Association —
historical facts of contemporary history and of public knowledge
which the petitioner cannot deny — makes the case against him quite
serious and may the necessitate the imposition of the capital
punishment.”
Jonathan DP. Racelis | JD1A “Non Scholae Sed Vitae”
Atty. Antonio Rivero - Philosophy of Law
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of
discretion for denying the petitioner’s petition to bail following
section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682?
Ruling:
No, the respondent judge is not committing grave abuse of discretion
because petitioner was charged for treason, which is considered as
“the highest of all crimes.”
Under the section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682, said section
reads partly as follows:
...Provided, however, That existing provisions of law to the
contrary notwithstanding, the aforesaid political prisoners may,
in the discretion of the People's Court, after due notice to the
Office of Special Prosecutors and hearing, be released on bail,
even prior to the presentation of the corresponding
information, unless the Court, finds that there is strong
evidence of the commission of a capital offense…
As may be seen in the provision of law, the release of a detainee on
bail is purely discretional on the People’s Court in which no bail can
be granted if the Court finds that there is strong evidence of the
commission of treason.
Moreover, in the order by the respondent judge on October 15, 1945,
the special prosecutor recited acts committed by the petitioner, in
which the acts were not refuted by the counsel for the petitioner at
the hearing for the petition for bail, which supports that conclusion
and ruling of the People’s Court.
In view of the foregoing, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has
been deprived of his liberty without due process of law, because his
petition for bail had been set for hearing and he was given an
opportunity to be heard when the above circumstances were
submitted to the People's Court, where it was made to appear
satisfactorily that he was being detained due to highly treasonable
activities against the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
Jonathan DP. Racelis | JD1A “Non Scholae Sed Vitae”
Atty. Antonio Rivero - Philosophy of Law
United States, which activities would be charged in the information
for a capital offense and punishable by death, and that the evidence
in the case strong.
Thus, the Supreme Court finds and holds that the petition is without
merit and ordered dismissed with costs against the petitioner
Jonathan DP. Racelis | JD1A “Non Scholae Sed Vitae”
