THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 131909 February 18, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ALFREDO CABRAL, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 30, Camarines Sur and RODERICK ODIAMAR, respondents.
Separate Opinions
VITUG, J., dissenting opinion;
With all due respect, I beg to disagree with the majority although it is not my wish to debate with it in its evaluation of the evidence presented before the court below. Rather, what I find to be difficult is whether this Court would be correct in substituting its own judgment over that of the trial at this stage of the proceedings. In an indictment for a capital offense, the accused is not entitled to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong,1and it is the duty of the judge to hear the parties and to make an intelligent assessment of the evidence presented. 2 When the judge views the evidence of guilt in such a capital offense not to be strong, the grant of bail becomes a matter of sound discretion on his part. 3
The extraordinary remedies under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are not open when the question is whether the trial judge has erred in the exercise of sound discretion. These special reliefs are available only when the judge has committed "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" in his decision or order such as by arbitrarily ignoring the evidence or completely acting on bias and whim. 4 Even assuming that judge has erred in his judgment, so long as grave abuse of discretion is not evident in his action, the aforesaid exceptional remedies are not warranted. Abuse of discretion must be such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercise in a despotic manner by reason, for instance, of passion and hostility. 5
The Court a quo, I believe, did not commit grave abuse of discretion as that term is so understood.ℒαwρhi৷
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition.
Footnotes
1 Cardines vs. Rosete, 242 SCRA 557.
2 See Concerned Citizens vs. Elma, 241 SCRA 84.
3 Baylon vs. Sison, 243 SCRA 284.
4 Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 425.
5 Commission on Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 200.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
