DE LA CAMARA v ENAGE

G.R. Nos. L-32951-2 September 17, 1971

FACTS: Ricardo de la Camara, Municipal Mayor of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental was

arrested and detained at the Provincial Jail of Agusan, for his alleged participation in the
killing of 14 and the wounding of 12 other laborers of the Tirador Logging Co., at Agusan del
Sur. The Provincial Fiscal of Agusan filed with the CFI a case for multiple frustrated murder
and another for multiple murder against de la Camara, his co-accused Tagunan and Galgo.
De la Camara filed an application for bail to the lower court.
Presiding Judge Manuel Enage started the trial of de la Camara, the prosecution resting its
case on 10 July 1969. On 10 August 1970, the judge issued an order granting de la
Camara's application for bail and fixed the bail bond at the excessive amount of
P1,195,200.00, the sum of P840,000.00 for the information charging multiple murder and
P355,200.00 for the offense of multiple frustrated murder. Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad
Santos, upon being informed of such order, sent a telegram to the Judge stating that the
bond required "is excessive" and suggesting that a P40,000.00 bond, either in cash or
property, would be reasonable.
De la Camara filed motion for reconsideration to reduce the amount. The Judge however
remained adamant. De la Camara escaped from the provincial jail on April 28, 1971.

ISSUE: Whether or not the amount of bail ordered by Enage is excessive.

HELD: Yes. Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a
sum that is excessive. Fixing the amount of P1,195,200.00 as the bail that should be posted
by petitioner is clearly violative of the constitutional provision. Under the circumstances,
there being only two offenses charged, the amount required as bail could not possibly
exceed P50,000.00 for the information for murder and P25,000.00 for the other information
for frustrated murder.
There is an attempt on the part of respondent Judge to justify what, on its face, appears to
be indefensible. The guidelines in the fixing of bail was summarized as follows: (1) ability of
the accused to give bail; (2) nature of the offense; (3) penalty for the offense charged; (4)
character and reputation of the accused; (5) health of the accused; (6) character and
strength of the evidence; (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial; (8) forfeiture of
other bonds; (9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (10) if
the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases. Respondent Judge,
however, did ignore this decisive consideration.
With petitioner, however, having escaped from the provincial jail, no ruling can be had on
his plea to nullify the above order. Wherefore, this case is dismissed for being moot and
academic.