FIRST DIVISION
[G.R.
No. 126859. November 24, 1998]
YOUSEF AL-GHOUL, ISAM MOHAMMAD ABDULHADI, WAIL RASHID AL-KHATIB NABEEL NASSER AL-RIYAMI, ET. AL., petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
This resolves petitioners’ Motion
for Clarification or Partial Lifting of Temporary Restraining Order on the
Motion for Bail which was filed on May 25, 1998.
Herein petitioners are detention
prisoners who were arrested and charged with illegal possession of firearms,
ammunitions and explosives under Sections 1 and 3 of Presidential Decree No.
1866 before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 123,[1] as a consequence of the search conducted pursuant to
the search warrants issued by the RTC of Kalookan City, Branch 125.
After their arrest, petitioners
filed a motion for bail. However, the resolution of the same was held in
abeyance by the trial court pending the presentation of evidence by the
prosecution to enable the court to determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong. Upon formal offer by
the prosecution of its evidence consisting of Exhibits “A” to “UU”, petitioners
objected to the same for being inadmissible.
In its Order dated February 7, 1996,[2] the trial court admitted all the exhibits being
offered by the prosecution for whatever purpose that it may be worth. Subsequently, the trial court issued the
Order dated February 19, 1996[3] denying petitioners’ motion for bail on the ground
that the law under which petitioners are charged prescribes a penalty of reclusion perpetua and that the evidence of guilt is strong.
Thereafter, petitioners proceeded
to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals,[4] assailing the aforementioned orders issued by the
trial court admitting the evidence of the prosecution and denying petitioners’
motion for bail. In its Decision dated
September 30, 1996[5] the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari and affirmed the assailed orders of trial court
pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as
amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-94.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed
before this Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
seeking the reversal of the September 30, 1996 decision of respondent Court of
Appeals for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to
lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.
Additionally, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order enjoining the trial court from proceeding with the trial of
the criminal cases.
On November 20, 1996, the Court,
without giving due course to the petition, resolved to require the respondents
to file its comment to the petition and at the same time issued the temporary restraining
order prayed for, effective during the entire period that the case is pending
or until further orders from the Court.[6]
On October 30, 1997, petitioners
filed a Manifestation[7] alleging that with the enactment of Republic Act No.
8294, amending P.D. 1866, the penalty for the offenses under which petitioners
are being charged has been reduced from the penalty ranging from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, to only the penalty ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal, hence, petitioners are now entitled to bail regardless of the
strength of evidence against them.
On May 25, 1998, petitioner,
through a new counsel, filed the instant Motion for Clarification or Partial
Lifting of TRO on the Matter of Bail,[8] seeking the partial lifting of the temporary
restraining order issued by this Court to allow the trial court to proceed with
the hearing on petitioners’ motion for bail in view of the amendment introduced
by RA 8294.
On July 6, 1998, the Court
required the respondents to file their Comment to petitioners’ motion.[9] In compliance therewith, the Office of the Solicitor
General manifested that it is not interposing any objection to petitioners’
motion for the partial lifting of the temporary restraining order issued by
this Court to enable the trial court to hear and resolve petitioners’ motion
for bail, considering the amendment introduced by RA 8294 which reduced the
penalties for illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives,
thereby entitling petitioners to be admitted to bail a matter of right before
conviction by the trial court, in accordance with Section 4 of SC
Administrative Circular No. 12-94.[10]
Consequent to the enactment of RA
8294, the penalty prescribed in Section 1 and 3 of P.D. 1866 for illegal
possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives under which petitioners were
charged, has now been reduced to prision mayor in its minimum period[11] and prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal,[12] respectively.
Evidently, petitioners are now entitled to bail as a matter of right
prior to their conviction by the trial court pursuant to Section 4 of SC
Administrative Circular No. 12-94 which provides as follows:
“SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right.—x x x. (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule.”
WHEREFORE, the petitioners’ motion is hereby GRANTED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by
this Court in the Resolution of November 20, 1996 is hereby PARTIALLY LIFTED in
so far as petitioners’ pending motion for bail before the RTC of Kalookan City,
Branch 123 is concerned. The trial
court is hereby ordered to proceed with the hearing of the motion for bail and
resolve the same with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Davide Jr. (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.