Pv Burgos

Nine private respondents were charged with the violation of RA 1700, as amended for allegedly
being the leaders of the CPP. This is a non-bailable offense. However,
o private respondent Catalina Peras, 8months pregnant then, was granted P10,000.00 as
bail
o While the prosecution was still presenting its evidence in support of its opposition to
the petitions for bail, respondent Judge issued an Order fixing bail at P30,000.00 each
for the temporary liberty of five (5) of the remaining eight (8) private respondents.
o The applications for bail of the three (3) other private respondents denied on the
ground that insofar as these particular respondents were concerned, the evidence of
guilt was strong.
Prosecution opposed the Order on the ground that it was premature; the prosecution was then
still in the process of presenting its evidence in support of its opposition to the applications for
bail.
Respondent judge ordered petitioner to file for an MR. Resp also disallowed petitioner's request
for its witness to print out in open court the material encoded in certain diskettes seized from
private respondents.
Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari questioning: (1) the Order granting bail; and
(2) the oral order of respondent Judge given in open court during the hearing on the same date
preventing the prosecution from holding an actual demonstration in court by printing out data
from the seized diskettes.

WN the Judge has committed GAD? Yes.

That order was clearly premature and deprived the People of its right to present its evidence
relating to the applications for bail.
o In People v. Dacudao, this Court, citing People v. San Diego, held:. 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 granting bail should be considered void on that ground.
Order failed to comply with the following requirement set forth in the above-cited case: The
court's discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be exercised in the light of a summary of
the evidence for the prosecution; otherwise, it would be uncontrolled and might be capricious or
whimsical. Hence, the court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion whether or not the evidence of guilt is
strong.
In the present case, the Order donly sets out a conclusion that the evidence of guilt is strong but
does not contain a summary of the evidence presented and considered. Order must be set aside.

WN order which disallowed a prosecution witness from holding an actual demonstration in court by
printing out the contents of the seized diskettes using the very same computer seized from the accused
on the ground that they could be "manipulatedis proper? No

Court disallowed such because To let this witness operate the computer is very dangerous,
because the witness said that these diskettes can be manipulated. So the motion of the
prosecution to let this witness have an actual demonstration before the court on the computer is
denied.
 Respondent Judge's insinuation or speculation that the prosecution, considering the fact that it
had the diskettes in its possession prior to the hearing, may have tampered with them appears
absolutely baseless and quite unfair to the prosecution. Such statement had in fact no basis in
the evidence before the respondent Judge.
The mere fact that the diskettes had been in the possession of the prosecution does not
necessarily imply that it had altered or tampered with the evidence to suit its prosecutorial
objectives. Indeed, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed prevails, in
the absence of any evidence to the contrary.