[ G.R. No. L-101. January 11, 1946 ] G.R. No. L-101
[ G.R. No. L-101. January 11, 1946 ]
HAYDEE HERRAS TEEHANKEE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LE0P0LD0 ROVIRA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. R E S O L U T I O N
Considering the motion of petitioner’s counsel in G.R. No. L-101, Haydee Herras Teehankee, petitioner, v. Leopoldo Rovira, et al., respondents, filed on January 2, 1946, and the answer thereto filed by respondent Hon. Antonio Quirino, as Associate Judge of the People’s Court, dated January 3, 1946; it appearing on page 16 of the transcript Annex “D” of said motion that at the hearing held before the People’s Court on December 27, 1945, pursuant to the decision of this Court, counsel for petitioner made a verbal petition asking the People’s Court to issue an order for petitioner’s release on bail in the amount of P50,000.00, said counsel announcing that should the People’s Court deny his said petition,, he will seek the corresponding extraordinary legal remedy before this Court, and it appearing that the People’s Court reserved its decision on the said oral petition, which is, therefore, still pending resolution, which fact makes petitioner’s motion of January 2, 1946, premature: said motion is denied, but with instruction for the People’s Court to render its decision on the aforesaid verbal petition, taking into account that when the Special Prosecutor in capital cases like the present, does not oppose the petition for release on bail, the Court should, as a general rule, in the proper exercise of its discretion, grant the release after approval of the bail which it should fix for the purpose5 but if the Court has reasons to believe that the Special Prosecutor’s attitude is not justified, it may ask him questions to ascertain the strength of the state’s evidence or to judge the adequacy of the amount of bail; when, however, the Special Prosecutor refuses to answer any particular question on the ground that the answer may involve a disclosure imperiling the success of the prosecution or jeopardizing the public interest, the Court may not compel him to do so, if and when he exhibits a statement to that effect of the Solicitor-General, who, as Head of the Office of Special Prosecutors, is vested with the direction and control of the prosecution, and may not even at the trial, be ordered by the Court to present evidence which he does not want to introduce—provided, of course, that such refusal shall not prejudice the rights of the defendant or detainee.
The Court disapproves offensive language used in the pleadings, motions and written argument submitted in this case.
Mr. Justice Jaranilla concurs in a separate opinion.
Mr. Justice De Joya concurs and dissents in a separate opinion.
Mr. Justice Ozaeta, with whom concurs Paras. J., dissents in a separate opinion.
Mr. Justice Perfecto also dissents in a separate opinion.