MARVIN CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Summary: The trial court's failure to comply with procedural rules constitutes grave abuse of discretion and may be the subject of a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

FACTS: Marvin Cruz, among others, was charged with Robbery in an Uninhabited

Place and by a Band. After private complainant filed his affidavit of desistance, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted prosecutor’s motion to dismiss but denied petitioner’s Motion to Release Cash Bond on the ground that the dismissal was through a desistance and not an acquittal. After the lapse of the period to appeal, they filed a petition for certiorari with Court of Appeals (CA), which the latter dismissed. 

ISSUE: Did petitioners’ wrongfully file the certiorari instead of an appeal?

HELD: No. Rule 114, Section 22 of ROC states that bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled in 3 instances: (a) acquittal of accused (b) dismissal of the case, or (c) execution of the judgment of conviction. An essential requisite for filing a petition for certiorari is the allegation of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Considering that the RTC blatantly disregarded Rule 114, Section 22, petitioners’ remedy was the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which they did. However, automatic cancellation does not always result in the immediate release of the bond. Cash bond, unlike corporate surety or property bond, may be applied to fines and other costs determined by the court. But since there were no fines or costs imposed upon Cruz, there was, therefore, no lien on the bond that could prevent its immediate release. RTC had no legal basis to deny the Motion to Release Cash Bond.