accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be thereinoffered or admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court which may confineitself to receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessarythoroughness in the examination and cross examination.The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as thedetermination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial
discretion, it may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at thehearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot properly beweighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicialdiscretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right ofcross examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal.Ruling2: NO. As long as in the fixing of the amount of bail, the Court is guided by the purpose for whichbail is required, that is, to secure the appearance of the accused to answer charges brought against him,the decision of the court to grant bail in the sum it deems appropriate will not be interfered with.Respondent judge added that the amount of bail was appropriate inasmuch as it was fixed in accordancewith the guidelines set forth in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94.