In Revilla, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division),^[32] the Court discussed the meaning of "a summary of the evidence for the prosecution" as follows:

x x x The summary of the evidence shows that the evidence presented during the prior hearing is formally recognizedas having been presented and most importantly, considered. The summary of the evidence is the basis for the judge's exercising his judicial discretion. Only after weighing the pieces of evidence as contained in the summary will the judge formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong based on his discretion. Thus, judicial discretion is not unbridled but must be supported by a finding of the facts relied upon to form an opinion on the issue before the court. x x x^[33] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Moreover, in People v. Cabral,^[34] which petitioner cites as basis, the Court ruled that the summary "should necessarily be a complete compilation or restatement of all the pieces of evidence presented during the hearing proper. x x x An incomplete enumeration or selective inclusion of pieces of evidence for the prosecution in the order cannot be considered a summary, for a summary is necessarily a reasonable recital of any evidence presented by the prosecution."^[35]

Thus, what jurisprudence requires is a reasonable recital of every piece of evidence of the prosecution - which was done in this case. Contrary to petitioner assertions, the testimonies per se of the witnesses need not be reproduced in the Order, as long as the same is recognized and considered by the trial court in its exercise of judicial discretion over the bail application.

Clearly, the trial court followed the proper procedure in granting Tanes' bail application. Having settled that petitioner was not deprived of its right to procedural due process, the Court shall now deal with the propriety of granting the bail application.