Scribd
Upload
331 views1 page

Cortes V Catral

Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in murder cases without holding hearings. Specifically, he granted bail and reduced bail amounts without hearing from prosecutors in two cases. The Supreme Court ruled that judges are required to hold hearings when setting bail for serious crimes like murder, even if prosecutors do not object. They must consider the strength of evidence and cannot grant bail without determining if evidence of guilt is strong. The Supreme Court found Judge Catral guilty of gross ignorance for granting bail in two murder cases without first holding the necessary hearings.

Uploaded by

Valerie Aileen Ancero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
331 views1 page

Cortes V Catral

Judge Catral was charged with gross ignorance of the law for granting bail in murder cases without holding hearings. Specifically, he granted bail and reduced bail amounts without hearing from prosecutors in two cases. The Supreme Court ruled that judges are required to hold hearings when setting bail for serious crimes like murder, even if prosecutors do not object. They must consider the strength of evidence and cannot grant bail without determining if evidence of guilt is strong. The Supreme Court found Judge Catral guilty of gross ignorance for granting bail in two murder cases without first holding the necessary hearings.

Uploaded by

Valerie Aileen Ancero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Cortes v Catral

Flaviano Cortes filed a case charging Judge Segundo Catral with Gross Ignorance of the Law.
Judge Catral granted bail in murder cases without hearing and also reduced the bailbond of some cases.

Judge Catral defended himself contending that he conducted a hearing in the case of People v
Duerme and the prosecution did not interpose any opposition. In People v Bumanglag, the public
porsecutor did not object when the accused through counsel filed a motion to reduce bail. Moreover, he
contended that he relied in the guidelines prescribed in Sec. 9 of Admin. Circular 12-94.

In this case, Supreme Court defined bail as the security required by the court and given by the
accused to ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at the scheduled time and place to
answer the charges brought against him or her. It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption
of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable him to prepare his defense
without being subject to punishment prior to conviction.

Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be


given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation because in fixing
the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number of factors such as the applicants
character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.

When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the
discretion of the court, not only to take into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court, but primarily to determine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or lack of it, against
the accused.

It ruled that respondent judge, in two instances, granted bail to an accused charged with
murder, without having conducted any hearing as to whether the evidence of guilt against the accused
is strong. Even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the
motion for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching questions from
which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.

SC found respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having
granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases No. 07-874 and 08-866 without having conducted the
requisite hearing.

You might also like