Pio Duran, a Filipino political prisoner, filed a petition for bail which was denied by Judge Salvador Abad Santos. Duran claimed this was a deprivation of liberty without due process. However, the court upheld the denial of bail, as Duran was being detained for highly treasonable activities against the Philippines and US, which would be charged as a capital offense with strong evidence. While the law generally allows bail, an exception exists for capital offenses which the court found applied in this case.
Pio Duran, a Filipino political prisoner, filed a petition for bail which was denied by Judge Salvador Abad Santos. Duran claimed this was a deprivation of liberty without due process. However, the court upheld the denial of bail, as Duran was being detained for highly treasonable activities against the Philippines and US, which would be charged as a capital offense with strong evidence. While the law generally allows bail, an exception exists for capital offenses which the court found applied in this case.
Pio Duran, a Filipino political prisoner, filed a petition for bail which was denied by Judge Salvador Abad Santos. Duran claimed this was a deprivation of liberty without due process. However, the court upheld the denial of bail, as Duran was being detained for highly treasonable activities against the Philippines and US, which would be charged as a capital offense with strong evidence. While the law generally allows bail, an exception exists for capital offenses which the court found applied in this case.
Pio Duran, a Filipino political prisoner, filed a petition for bail which was denied by Judge Salvador Abad Santos. Duran claimed this was a deprivation of liberty without due process. However, the court upheld the denial of bail, as Duran was being detained for highly treasonable activities against the Philippines and US, which would be charged as a capital offense with strong evidence. While the law generally allows bail, an exception exists for capital offenses which the court found applied in this case.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
PIO DURAN V.
SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, Judge of People’s Court
G.R. No. L-99, November 16, 1945 JARANILLA, J.
Facts: Pio Duran, a Filipino political prisoner, filed a petition in the People’s Court for his release on bail. The Solicitor General recommended that the petitioner be provisionally released on P35, 000 bail. However, after hearing the statements of Special Prosecutor Carpio and Atty. Almario, counsel for the petitioner, respondent Judge Santos denied the petition for bail.
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion for denying the petition to bail as pursuant to Section 19 of Act No. 682.
Ruling: No. According to the special prosecutor, the information to be filed in the case would be for treason, which is “the highest of all crimes” penalized with capital punishment under RPC.
Moreover, the Court holds Counsel’s contention that there is strong evidence of the commission of a capital offense in which case no bail whatever can be granted. The petitioner cannot attack it as being illegal or unconstitutional. And it appearing that his case is covered by said exception of the law, it must be held that he cannot be admitted to bail.
In view of the foregoing, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has been deprived of his liberty without due process of law, because his petition for bail had been set for hearing and he was given an opportunity to be heard, where it was made to appear satisfactorily that he was being detained due to highly treasonable activities against the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the United States, which activities would be charged in the information for a capital offense and punishable by death and that the evidence in the case is strong.
WHEREFORE, the petition is without merit.
Philosophical Reference:
Judge Gregorio Perfecto made big impression in quoting the words the outstanding philosopher-jurist Jhering wrote in his little big book, "The Struggle for Law”
The essay clearly refers to “I crave the law” the poet's description in the relation of law in the subject, in the objective and sense of the term meaning of the struggle for law. Shylock, on the other hand was a Jew who has suffered endless discrimination at the hands of his enemy, Antonio, asks why he should not be allowed to exact his revenge now that he has been given the chance. He describes the struggle of every man in any level whose sentiment of legal right in strongest and most ideal when the imperfection of legal institution refuses him satisfaction on decision rendered on him. He stated the struggle against the law, the feeling of legal right left in loiter by the power which should protect it. At the present case, Pio Duran being charged with treason in which known for highest of all crimes bears the weight of proving his right to bail, a struggle in which he believed he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law, like Shylock, whose claim of question for law has changed in the law of Venice. Law may be harsh but that is the law, is the maxim I can relate to his current situation. We refer to laws favorable for the accused, however, under circumstances, in which he is in, the law is not absolute and it may have exception.
Nutrition, Feed and Feeding of Gold Mahseer (Tor Putitora) For Domestication and Production in Nepal (By Jaidev Bista, Bhola Ram Pradhan - , Ash Kumar Rai - , Ram Kumar Shrestha, Tek Bahadur Gurung)
