8/18/2019 Teenhankee v Dop

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teenhankee-v-dop 1/1

G.R. No. L-2781  May 4, 1945HAYDEE HERRAS TEEHANKEE, vs.DIRECTR ! "RISNS, ET AL. I# $% ANTNI&'IRIN, $%s(o#)%#*.

"ART !I+ET"IC AIL NAT'RE AND DE!INITIN DISCRETINARY "ER C'RIAM,  J.

!ACTS Haydee Herras Teehankee is a political detainee delivered by theCounter Intelligence Corps, United States Army, to the CommonwealthGovernment, pursuant to the roclamation o! General o! the Army "ouglas#acArthur, dated $% "ecember &%''( She was one o! the petitioners incase )o( *+'', -a.ui/a vs( 0rad!ord, o! the Supreme Court( She is nowcon1ned in the Correctional Institution !or 2omen under the custody o! theCommonwealth Government since 3ctober, &%'4, when she was thusdelivered to the said government( 3n $ 3ctober &%'4, Herras Teehankee,through her husband, Alberto Teehankee, 1led with the eople5s Court apetition wherein, invoking the provisions o! 67ecutive 3rder )o( 84,promulgated by His 67cellency, the resident o! the hilippines, dated 9September &%'4, she prayed that her immediate release be ordered on the

ground that no evidence e7ists upon which she could be charged with anyact punishable by law, or, alternatively, that the eople5s Court 17 the bail!or her provisional liberty, in con!ormity with the a!oresaid e7ecutive order,and upon approval o! such bail, that an order be !orthwith issued directingthe o:cer having o:cial custody o! her person to immediately release her(3n % 3ctober &%'4, the Hon( *eopoldo -ovira, residing ;udge o! theeople5s Court, entered an order re!erring the petition !or provisionalrelease !or consideration by the <i!th "ivision o! the eople5s Court, butadding the !ollowing statement= in my opinion, it should be deniednotwithstanding the recommendation o! the Solicitor General !or herprovisional release under a bond o! 4>,>>>( 3n the same date, the Hon(ompeyo "ia/, Associate ;udge o! the eople5s Court, entered an orderdisposing o! said petition and denying the same in view o! the gravity o! 

the o?ense as can be deduced !rom the !act that the o:ce o! the Special

rosecutors recommends as high as 4>,>>> !or her provisional release(Herras Teehankee 1led !or reconsideration, but the Court, throughAssociate ;udge ompeyo "ia/, denied said motion( Herras Teehankee 1leda petition !or the writs o! certiorari and mndamus on &% 3ctober &%'4 withthe Supreme Court(

ISS'E 2hether a person may 1le !or bail even be!ore a !ormal charge orin!ormation is 1led against him(

HELD Article III, section &@&8 o! the Commonwealth Constitution ++ whichprovides that All persons shall be!ore conviction be bailable by su:cientsureties, e7cept those charged with capital o?enses when evidence o! guiltis strong( 67cessive bail shall not be re.uired ++ re!ers to all persons, notonly to persons against whom a complaint or in!ormation has already been!ormally 1led( It lays down the rule that all persons shall be!ore convictionbe bailable e7cept those charged with capital o?enses when evidence o! guilt is strong( According to the provision, the general rule is that anyperson, be!ore being convicted o! any criminal o?ense, shall be bailable,e7cept when he is charged with a capital o?ense and the evidence o! hisguilt is strong( 3! course, only those persons who have been arrested,detained or otherwise deprived o! their liberty will ever have occasion toseek the bene1ts o! said provision( 0ut in order that a person can invokethis constitutional precept, it is not necessary that he should wait until a!ormal complaint or in!ormation is 1led against him( <rom the moment heis placed under arrest, detention or restraint by the o:cers o! the law, hecan claim this guarantee o! the 0ill o! -ights, and this right he retainsunless and until he is charged with a capital o?ense and evidence o! hisguilt is strong( Indeed i!, as admitted on all sides, the precept protectsthose already charged under a !ormal complaint or in!ormation, thereseems to be no legal or Bust reason !or denying its bene1ts to one asagainst whom the proper authorities may even yet conclude that theree7ists no su:cient evidence o! guilt( To place the !ormer in a more !avoredposition than the latter would be, to say the least, anomalous and absurd(I! there is a presumption o! innocence in !avor o! one already !ormallycharged with criminal o?ense @Constitution, Article III, section &&DE, a!ortiori, this presumption should be indulged in !avor o! one yet so charged,

although already arrested or detained