9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103

VOL. 103, MARCH 17, 1981 393

People vs. Sola

*
No. L-56158-64. March 17, 1981.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. MAYOR

PABLO SOLA, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN MEMBER
FRANCISCO (ECOT) GARCIA, RICARDO (CADOY)
GARCIA, JOSE BETHOVEN (ATSONG) CABRAL,
CAPTAIN FLORENDO BALISCAO, JOHN, PETER,
OSCAR, OMAR, JACK, RICHARD, JAMES, DONALD,
WILLIAM, ROBERT, HOMER, JESSIE, ANDY, PAUL, all
surnamed DOE’s, respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Constitutional Law; The Supreme Court

has the power to order a change of venue to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.—It may not be amiss to say a few words on the question of
transferring the place of trial, in this case, from Himamaylan to
Bacolod City. The Constitution is quite explicit. The Supreme
Court could order “a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.” The Constitutional Convention of 1971
wisely incorporated the ruling in the landmark decision of People
v. Gutierrez, where Justice J. B. L. Reyes as ponente vigorously
and categorically affirmed: “In the particular case before Us, to
compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its
witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to
make a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very
purpose for which courts have been established.
Same; Same; In case of doubt, administrative transfer of
venue shall be ordered having in mind the aim and interest of the
Constitution.—It may be added that there may be cases where the
fear, objectively viewed, may, to some individuals, be less than
terrifying, but the question must always be the effect it has on the
witnesses who will testify. The primordial aim and intent of the
Con-

_______________

*EN BANC

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103

394

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sola

stitution must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be

resolved in favor of a change of venue. As a matter of fact, there
need not be a petition of this character filed before this Court.
Such a plea could have been done administratively. In this
particular case, however, there is justification for the procedure
followed in view of the fact that along with the change of venue,
the cancellation of the bail bonds was also sought.
Same; Grant of bail bond in a capital charge without hearing
the prosecution is not called for.—Equally so the cancellation of
the bail bonds is more than justified. Bail was granted to the
accused in the Order of the Municipal Court without hearing the
prosecution. That is to disregard the authoritative doctrine
enunciated in People v. San Diego. As pointed out by Justice
Capistrano, speaking for the Court: “The question presented
before us is, whether the prosecution was deprived of procedural
due process. The answer is in the affirmative. We are of the
considered opinion that whether the motion for bail of a defendant
who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary
proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must
be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all
the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court
should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in criminal case involved
in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should be
denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of
procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail
should be considered void on that ground.”

PETITION for certiorari from the order of the Municipal

Court of Kabankalan.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

FERNANDO, C.J.:
1
The power of this Tribunal, constitutionally mandated, to
order a change of venue to avoid any miscarriage of justice
as well as the procedure ordained in the implementation of
the

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103

1 According to Article X, Section 5(4) of the Constitution: “The Supreme

Court shall have the following powers: (4) Order a change of venue or
place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”

395

VOL. 103, MARCH 17, 1981 395

People vs. Sola

2
right to bail are involved in this petition which, even if not
so denominated, partakes of the nature of a certiorari. It
must have been the zeal of3 private prosecutors Francisco
Cruz and Renecio Espiritu, no doubt under the conviction
that there was no time to lose, that must have led them to
devote less than that full measure of attention to certain
fundamentals. They ignored the principle that the
responsibility for the conduct of the prosecution is with the
public officials concerned. Nonetheless, the importance of
the questions raised, the need for a change of venue and
the cancellation of the bail bonds, necessitated that further
action be taken. Accordingly, in a resolution dated
February 12, 1981, one day after the filing of the petition,
the Court required the comment of the 4
Solicitor General as
well as of the private respondents, the accused in six
pending criminal cases before the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental.
On March 4, 1981, the Comment5 was submitted by
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza. It opened with this
preliminary statement: “The present petition was filed by
the private prosecutors in Criminal Cases Nos. 1700-1706,
People v. Pablo Sola, et al., pending trial before the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Rightly, any petition
before this Honorable Court on behalf of the People of the
Philippines can, under the law, be instituted only by the
Solicitor General. The assertion of the petitioner private
prosecutors that they are instituting the action subject to
the control and supervision of 6the Fiscal’ will not, therefore,
improve their legal standing.”

_______________

2 According to Article IV, Section 18 of the Constitution: “All persons,

except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties.
Excessive bail shall not be required.”
3 The name of the highly-experienced counsel Juan Hagad was included
in the list of private prosecutors, but he did not sign the petition.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103

4 The private respondents are Francisco (Ecot) Garcia and Ricardo

(Cadoy) Garcia.
5 He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Roberto E. Soberano
and Solicitor Roberto A. Abad.
6 Comment, 1-2.

396

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sola

Nonetheless, it did not press the legal point but instead

adopted “the two-pronged thrusts of the petition: 1. the
setting aside, by certiorari, of the order of the Municipal
Court of Kabankalan, presided over by Judge Rafael
Gasataya, granting bail to the accused in the criminal
cases mentioned above, and 2. the petition for a change of
venue or place of trial 7of the same criminal cases to avoid a
miscarriage of justice”
The facts were therein narrated thus: “On September
15, 1980, acting on the evidence presented by the
Philippine Constabulary commander at Hinigaran, Negros
Occidental, the Court of First Instance of that province
issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the
deceased bodies of seven persons believed in the possession
of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda at Sta. Isabel,
Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. * * * On September 16,
1980 armed with the above warrant, elements of the 332nd
PC/INP Company proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings
made in a canefield yielded two common graves containing
the bodies of Fernando Fernandez, Mateo Olimpos, Alfredo
Perez, Custodio Juanica, Arsolo Juanica, Rollie Callet and
Bienvenido Emperado. On September 23 and October 1,
1980, the PC provincial commander of Negros Occidental
filed seven (7) separate complaints for murder against the
accused Pablo Sola, Francisco Garcia, Ricardo Garcia, Jose
Bethoven Cabral, Florendo Baliscao and fourteen (14) other
persons of unknown names. The cases were docketed as
Criminal Cases No. 4129, 4130, 4131, 4137, 4138, 4139 and
4140 of the Municipal Court of Kabankalan. After due
preliminary examinatio n o f the co mplainant’s witnesses
and his other evidence, the municipal court found probable
cause against the accused. It thus issued an order for their
arrest. However, without giving the prosecution the
opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong, the court granted them the right to post
bail for their temporary release. The accused Pablo Sola,
Francisco Garcia, and Jose Bethoven Cabral availed
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103

themselves of this right and have since been released from

detention. In a parallel development, the witnesses in the
murder cases informed the

_______________

7 Ibid, 2.

397

VOL. 103, MARCH 17, 1981 397

People vs. Sola

prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the

Court of First Instance branch in Himamaylan which is but
10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their safety could be
jeopardized. At least two of the accused are officials with
power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been
released on bail. In addition, most of the accused remained
at large. Indeed, there have been reports made to police
authorities 8 of threats made on the families of the
witnesses.” The facts alleged argue strongly for the
remedies so ught, namely a change of venue and the
cancellation of the bail bonds.
On the very next day, March 15, 1981, this Court issued
the following resolution: “The Court Resolved to: (a) [Note]
the comment of the Solicitor General on the urgent petition
for change of venue and cancellation of bail bonds, adopting
the plea of the petition, namely, (1) the setting aside, by
certiorari, of the order of the Municipal Court of
Kabankalan, presided over by Judge Rafael Gasataya,
granting bail to the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 4129,
4130, 4131, 4137, 4138, 4139 and 4140, all entitled ‘People
of the Philippines v. Mayor Pablo Sola, et al.’; (2) the
petition for a change of venue or place of trial of the same
criminal cases to avoid a miscarriage of justice; (b)
[Transfer] the venue of the aforesaid criminal cases to
Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental at Bacolod City, presided by Executive Judge
Alfonso Baguio, considering that District Judge Ostervaldo
Emilia of the Court of First Instance, Negros Occidental,
Branch VI at Himamaylan has an approved leave ot
absence covering the period from January 12 to March 12,
1981 due to a mild attack of cerebral thrombosis and that
the said Branch V is the nearest court station to
Himamaylan; and (c) [Await] the comment of respondents
on the petition to cancel bail, without prejudice to the
public officials concerned taking the necessary measures to
9
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103
9
assure the safety of the witnesses of the prosecution.”
Thus, the issue of a change of venue has become moot and
academic. The comments respectively submitted by
respondent Florendo Baliscao on March 5, 1981,
respondent

_______________

8 Ibid, 2-4.
9 Resolution of the Court, dated March 5, 1981.

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sola

Francisco Garcia on March 11, 1981 and respondent Pablo

Sola on March 16, 1981, dealt solely with the question of
the cancellation of the bail bonds. Such comments were
considered as answers, with the case thereafter deemed
submitted for decision.
The sole remaining issue of the cancellation of the bail
bonds of respondents, there being a failure to abide by the
basic requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case
where the accused is charged with a capital offense, prior
to bail being granted, must be decided in favor of
petitioner. The bail bonds must be cancelled and the case
remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for
such hearing. So we rule.
1. It may not be amiss to say a few words on the
question of transferring the place of trial, in this case, from
Himamaylan to Bacolod City. The Constitution is quite
explicit. The Supreme Court could order “a change of venue 10
or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.” The
Constitutional Convention of 1971 wisely incorporated the ruling in the landmark
decision of People v. Gutierrez,11 where Justice J. B. L. Reyes as ponente vigorously and categorically affir
med: “In the par ticular case before Us, to compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will
not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose for
which courts have been established.”12 Why a change of venue is imperative was made clear in the Comment of the Solicitor General. Thus: “The
exercise by this Honorable Court of its above constitutional power in this case will be appropriate. The witnesses in the case are fearful for their lives. They are

afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of this fear, they may either refuse to testify or testify

falsely to save their lives.”13 Respondent Florendo Baliscao was not averse to such transfer,

399

VOL. 103, MARCH 17, 1981 399

People vs. Sola

but his14 preference is for a court anywhere in Metro

Manila. Respondent Francisco Garcia confined his
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103

comment to the question of the cancellation of the bail

bonds. Respondent Pablo Sola made clear that he had “no
objection to the transfer.”15 It may be added that there may
be cases where the fear, objectively viewed, may, to some
individuals, be less than terrifying, but the question must
always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify.
The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must
ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved
in favor of a change of venue. As a matter of fact, there
need not be a petition of this character filed before this
Court. Such a plea could have been done administratively .
In this particular case, however, there is justification for
the procedure followed in vie w of the fact that along with
the change of venue, the cancellation of the bail bonds was
also sought.
2. Equally so the cancellation of the bail bonds is more
than justified. Bail was granted to the accused in the Order
of the Municipal Court without hearing the prosecution.
That is to disregard the authoritative
16
doctrine enunciated
in People v. San Diego. As pointed out by Justice
Capistrano, speaking for the Court: “The question
presented before us is, whether the prosecution was
deprived of procedural due process. The answer is in the
affirmative. We are of the considered opinion that whether
the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a
capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in
the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given
an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the
evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court
should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal
case involved in the instant special civil action, the
prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there
would be a violation of procedural due process, and the
order of the court gran-

_______________

14 Comment of respondent Florendo Baliscao. erroneously entitled

Rejoinder to the Petition, 1.
15 Comment of respondent Pablo Sola, erroneously entitled Opposition
of respondent Mayor Pablo Sola, 1.
16 L-29676, December 24, 1968, 26 SCRA 522.

400

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sola

17
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103
17
ting bail should be considered void on that ground.” These
words of Justice Cardozo come to mind: “The law, as we
have seen, is sedulous in maintaining for a defendant
charged with crime whatever forms of procedure are of the
essence of an opportunity to defend. Privileges so
fundamental as to be inherent in every concept of a fair
trial that could be acceptable to the thought of reasonable
men will be kept inviolate and inviolable, however crushing
may be the pressure of incriminating proof. But justice,
though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The
concept of fairness must not be strained till it 18is narrowed
to a filament. We are to keep the balance true.” This norm
which is of the very essence of due process as the
embodiment of justice requires that the prosecution be
given the opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence
of guilt. It does not suffice, as asserted herein, that the
questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was
granted could be characterized as searching. That 19
fact did
not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character.
WHEREFORE, the assailed order of Judge Rafael
Gasataya granting bail to private respondents is nullified,
set aside, and declared to be without force and effect.
Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental, to whose sala the cases had
been transferred by virtue of the resolution of this Court of
March 5, 1981, is directed forthwith to hear the petitions
for bail of private respondents, with the prosecution being
duly heard on the question of whether or not the evidence
of guilt against the respondents is strong. This decision is
immediately executory. No costs.

          Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr.,

Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.,
concur.
     Barredo and Abad Santos, JJ., are on official leave.

Order nullified, set aside and declared to be without

force and effect.

_______________

17 Ibid, 524.
18 Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 122 (1933).
19 Cf. Inocencio v. Alconcel, G. R. No. 55658, February 5, 1981.

401

VOL. 103, MARCH 17, 1981 401

People vs. Sola
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 103

Notes.—The posting of bail bond constitutes waiver of

any irregularity attending the arrest of a person and estops
him from discussing the validity of his arrest. (Callanta vs.
Villanueva, 77 SCRA 377).
Notice of execution of judgment need not be served on
the defendant; nor is there a need to call the bondsmen at
the same time. (Eva vs. Calayag, 78 SCRA 79).
The trial cannot require the accused to post a cash bond.
(Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38).
The grant of bail to the accused charged with a capital
offense even though evidence of guilt of the accused is
strong is reprehensible. (Tahil vs. Eisma, 64 SCRA 378).

——o0o——

402

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745f8f8fa50397c53d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9