Practice question
Following a bail hearing in a reclusion perpetua case, a judge writes only 'bail granted because I feel the accused will attend,' omitting any summary or evaluation of prosecution evidence on guilt. Which is the soundest criticism?
- Attendance is never relevant to any bail question
- The prosecution has the burden to prove final guilt beyond reasonable doubt at this preliminary stage
- No order can ever grant bail for such a charge
- The order must contain the evidentiary summary and reasoned conclusion on whether guilt is strong; an attendance prediction alone does not supply that determination
- The judge must delegate the ruling to the bondsman
Legal references
- Rule 114, Sections 7–8 and 18; Garcia v. Tehano-Ang, A.M. No. RTJ-24-066, May 14, 2024, main decision.
- Reviewed primary authority, Rule 114, Sections 7–8 and 18; questions use current reclusion perpetua/life imprisonment charges: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- Reviewed primary authority, Main decision, mandatory bail hearing and evidence summary: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/may2024/am_rtj-24-066_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.