We also note that the trial court did not conduct a hearing of the Urgent Motion for Bail as required under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. The grant or denial of bail must be based upon the court's determination as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion may only be exercised after evidence is submitted at the hearing conducted for that purpose. [36] The court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong; otherwise, the order would be defective and voidable. [37] In fact, even if the prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such questions as would ascertain the strength of the State's evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount of bail. [38] It was, thus, incumbent upon the trial court to receive the evidence for the prosecution on the urgent motion for bail. For this procedural shortcoming, Larkins should also be partly blamed. He did not press for a hearing after the scheduled hearing on 5 December 1994 was cancelled because, as he claimed, the Presiding Judge was out of the country. [39] G.R. No. 131909 February 18, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO CABRAL, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 30, Camarines Sur and RODERICK ODIAMAR,respondents. ROMERO, J .:Assailed b efore this Court is t he Augu st 1, 199 7 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA GR. No. 42318 which affirmed the March 24, 1995 and June 14, 1996 orders 2 of the lower court granting accused-respondent's Motion for Bail and denying petitioner People's Motions "to Recall and Invalidate Order of March 24, 1995" and "to Recall and/or Reconsider the Order of May 5, 1995" confirming the hospitalization of accused-respondent. Accused-re sponden t Rode rick Odiama r was char ged w ith rape up on the c omplaint of Cecille Buenafe. In a bid to secure temporary liberty, accused- respondent filed a motion praying that he be released on bail which petitioner by presenting real, documentary and testimonial evidence. The lower court, however, granted the motion for bail in an order, the dispositive portion of which reads:
