law crimpro cases bail

8/15/2019 Law CrimPro Cases Bail

1/92

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

DECISION

July 31 1!"1

#$R$ No$ %&1'"()

PABLO FELICIANO petitione*+s$

HON. LADISLAO PASICOLAN, in his capacity as Ju!" #$ th" C#u%t #$ Fi%st Instanc" #$

Pa&pan!a, an UNION C. 'A(ANAN, in his capacity as p%#)incia* Fisca* #$ Pa&pan!a

*espon,ents$

Felimon Cajator for petitioner.

Union C. Kayanan for and in his own behalf as respondent.

Nati)ia, J.+

-his is a petition fo* .*it of mandamus to co/pel the *espon,ent Ju,0e to ,eci,e on the /e*its a

/otion file, by the petitione* in C*i/inal Case No$ 1!' of the Cou*t of 2i*st Instance ofPa/pan0a People +s$ Ca*los Pabustanet al$ in .hich he ass that the Cou*t fi4 at P15555$555

the a/ount of the bail fo* his libe*ty pen,in0 t*ial$

It appea*s that the petitione* Pablo 2eliciano .as one of the ei0hteen pe*sons cha*0e, .ith thec*i/e of i,nappin0 .ith /u*,e* in an a/en,e, info*/ation file, on Octobe* 6' 1!( in

C*i/inal Case No$ 1!' of the Cou*t of 2i*st Instance of Pa/pan0a People +s$ Ca*los Pabustan

et al$ 7pon lea*nin0 of the filin0 of sai, info*/ation an, that a .a**ant fo* his a**est ha, been

issue, the petitione* fea*in0 acco*,in0 to his la.ye* that he /i0ht fall into the han,s ofi**esponsible police office*s an, to a+oi, ,is0*ace an, hu/iliation conse8uent to an a**est an,

inca*ce*ation .ent into hi,in0$ On Octobe* 35 1!( ho.e+e* Atto*ney 2ile/on Ca9ato* at the

instance of the petitione*:s .ife file, in the case a /otion asin0 that the Cou*t fi4 at P15555$55the a/ount of the bon, fo* petitione*:s *elease pen,in0 t*ial$ -he P*o+incial 2iscal of Pa/pan0a

oppose, this /otion on the 0*oun, that the filin0 the*eof .as p*e/atu*e as the petitione* ha, not

yet been a**este,$ Afte* hea*in0 the *espon,ent Ju,0e then p*esi,in0 the Cou*t of 2i*st Instance

of Pa/pan0a ,is/isse, petitione*:s /otion on the 0*oun, that ;pen,in0 his a**est o* su**en,e*Pablo 2eliciano has not the *i0ht to as this cou*t to a,/it hi/ to bail$< =ence the instant

p*ocee,in0$

It is conten,e, that as un,e* the Constitution ;all pe*sons shall befo*e con+iction be bailable bysufficient su*eties e4cept those cha*0e, .ith capital offenses .hen e+i,ence of 0uilt is st*on0<

A*ticle III Section 1 pa*a0*aph >1"? Constitution of the Philippines an, that the .o*,s ;all

pe*sons< use, in sai, constitutional p*o+ision ha+e been inte*p*ete, to /ean ;all pe*sons


2/92

.ithout ,istinction .hethe* fo*/ally cha*0e, o* not yet so cha*0e, .ith any c*i/inal offense<

=e**as -eehanee +s$ Di*ecto* of P*isons )" Phil$ )(" the *espon,ent Ju,0e has faile, to

co/ply .ith a ,uty i/pose, by la. in *efusin0 to ,eci,e on the /e*its petitione*:s /otion fo*a,/ission to bail an, conse8uently mandamus lies to co/pel sai, *espon,ent to ,o so$

@e fail to fin, /e*its in petitione*:s contention$ -he petition at ba* is in effect a petition fo*a,/ission to bail$ An, the *ule on the sub9ect in this 9u*is,iction is .ell settle,$ -he*e is no

8uestion as to the soun,ness of the *ule in+oe, by petitione*$ Such is the la. in this 9u*is,iction$But the *ule is sub9ect to the li/itation that the pe*son applyin0 fo* a,/ission to bail shoul, be

in the custo,y of the la. o* othe*.ise ,ep*i+e, of his libe*ty$ Bail is ,efine, un,e* the Rules of

Cou*t as secu*ity ;*e8ui*e, an, 0i+en fo* the *elease of a pe*son .ho is in custo,y of the la.<Rule 115 sec$ 1 Rules of Cou*t$ In the case of =e**as -eehanee +s$ Ro+i*a )( Phil$ "3' this

Cou*t hel,

-his constitutional /an,ate *efe*s to all pe*sons not only to pe*sons a0ainst .ho/ a co/plaint

o* info*/ation has al*ea,y been fo*/ally file,$ It lays ,o.n the *ule that all pe*sons shall befo*e

con+iction be bailable e4cept those cha*0e, .ith capital offenses .hen e+i,ence of 0uilt isst*on0$ Acco*,in0 to this p*o+ision the 0ene*al *ule is that any pe*son befo*e bein0 con+icte, of

any c*i/inal offense shall be bailable e4cept .hen he is cha*0e, .ith a capital offense an, thee+i,ence of his 0uilt is st*on0$ Of cou*se only those pe*sons .ho ha+e been eithe* a**este,

,etaine, o* othe*.ise ,ep*i+e, of thei* libe*ty .ill e+e* ha+e occasion to see the benefits of sai,

p*o+ision$ But in o*,e* that a pe*son can in+oe the constitutional p*ecept it is not necessa*y thathe shoul, .ait until a fo*/al co/plaint o* info*/ation is file, a0ainst hi/$ 2*o/ the /o/ent he

is place, un,e* a**est ,etention o* *est*aint by the office*s of the la. he can clai/ this 0ua*antee

of the Bill of Ri0hts an, this *i0ht he *etains unless an, until he is cha*0e, .ith a capital offense

an, e+i,ence of his 0uilt is st*on0$

An, in the case of Mani0bas +s$ %una (6 O$#$ 1'5( it .as hel,

@e hol, that this petition is p*e/atu*e fo* its pu*pose is to co/pel the pe*fo*/ance of ,uty

.hich ,oes not e4ist the*e bein0 no co**elati+e *i0ht the use o* en9oy/ent of it has been ,enie,

.hich /ay be the sub9ect of mandamus >section ") Rule 3? an, this is so because the *i0ht to bail only acc*ues .hen a pe*son is a**este, o* ,ep*i+e, of his libe*ty$ -he pu*pose of bail is to

secu*e one:s *elease an, it .oul, be incon0*uous to 0*ant bail to one .ho is f*ee$ -hus bail is

the secu*ity *e8ui*e, an, 0i+en fo* the *elease of a pe*son .ho is in the custo,y of the la.$: >Rule115 section 1? an, e+i,ently the accuse, ,o not co/e .ithin its pu*+ie.$

In the instant case the petitione* upon lea*nin0 that an a/en,e, info*/ation cha*0in0 hi/ an,

se+enteen othe*s .ith the c*i/e of i,nappin0 .ith /u*,e* ha, been file, an, that a .a**ant fo*

his a**est ha, been issue, i//e,iately .ent into hi,in0 an, until no. is at la*0e$ @ithoutsu**en,e*in0 hi/self he file, the /otion in .hich he ass that the cou*t fi4 the a/ount of the

bail bon, fo* his *elease pen,in0 t*ial$ It is the*efo*e clea* that the petitione* is a f*ee /an an, is

un,e* the 9u*isp*u,ence not entitle, to a,/ission to bail$


3/92

@=ERE2ORE .e hol, that the petitione* has faile, to /ae sufficient sho.in0 to entitle hi/ to

the *e/e,y he*ein p*aye, fo*$ Acco*,in0ly the p*esent p*ocee,in0 is he*eby ,is/isse, .ith the

costs ta4e, a0ainst the petitione*$ It is so o*,e*e,$

Ben0on C$J$ Pa,illa %ab*a,o* Concepcion Reyes J$ B$%$ Pa*e,es Dion an, De %eon JJ$

concu*$

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23599 September 29, 1967

REYNL!O C. "#LLSE$OR, petitioner,vs.%ON. MMO 'NO, ()*+e o te Co)rt o /r0t #0te o Mr/*)4)e * T%EPRO"#NC#L #SCL O MR#N!UUE, respondents.

Maximo Abano for respondents.No appearance for petitioner.

SNC%E, J.:

The questions presented in this an original petition for certiorari , too root in Cri!inal Case ""##$Court of %irst &nstance of Marinduque' for the !urder of Boac police sergeant Alfonso Madla,

lodged b( the Provincial %iscal against petitioner.)

Petitioner, defendant belo*, *as, on !otion,ad!itted to a P+,.-bail. The a!ount of the bond *as, on verbal representation of petitioners*ife, reduced to P/,.. 0n Ma( "#, )#+/, petitioner posted a propert( bond, *as set atprovisional libert(.

Before arraign!ent on the !urder charge, ho*ever, respondent Provincial %iscal a!ended theinfor!ation. This ti!e he accused petitioner *ith 12irect Assault 3pon an Agent of a Person in Authorit( *ith Murder.1

0n August 4, )#+/, respondent 5udge sua sponte cancelled petitioners bond, ordered his i!!ediatearrest.

0n petitioners !otion. to reconsider, respondent 5udge, on 6epte!ber #, )#+/, after hearing,resolved to ad!it hi! to bail provided he puts up a cash bond of P+,..

0n 6epte!ber )7, )#+/, on petitioners !otion that the original bond previousl( given be reinstated,respondent 5udge resolved to fi8 1the bond ane* in real propert( in the a!ount of P+,., but tobe posted onl( b( residents of the province of Marinduque actuall( sta(ing therein1 *ith properties*hich 1!ust be in the possession and o*nership of said residents for five (ears.1


4/92

0n 0ctober ), )#+/, petitioner ca!e to this Court on certiorari , *ith a pra(er for preli!inar(in5unction. 9e sees to set aside respondent 5udges orders of August 4, 6epte!ber # and6epte!ber )7, )#+/: to reinstate the bail bond theretofore approved b( respondent 5udge on Ma("#, )#+/, and for other reliefs. 9e charges respondent 5udge having acted *ithout an( or in e8cessof his 5urisdiction and *ith grave abuse of discretion, and *ith violation of the Constitution and theRules of Court in issuing the disputed orders.

0n 0ctober ;, )#+/, this Court issued a *rit of preli!inar( in5unction upon a P),.-bond.


5/92

E8pressions in var(ing, language spell out in a general *a( the principles governing bail fi8ing. 0neis that the a!ount should be high enough to assure the presence of defendant *hen required but nohigher than is reasonabl( calculated to fulfill this purpose.# Another is that 1the good of the public as*ell as the rights of the accused,1) and 1the need for a tie to the 5urisdiction and the right to freedo!fro! unnecessar( restraint before conviction under the circu!stances surrounding each particularaccused1,)) should all be balanced in one equation.


6/92


7/92

sureties for at least five (ears.1 Respondent 5udge, in his return, relies on Circular ",dated anuar( ";, )#+/, of the 9onorable, the 6ecretar( of ustice, addressed,a!ong others, to udges of %irst &nstance. That circular recites that it had beenbrought to the attention of the 2epart!ent of ustice that in certain provinces,unscrupulous persons *ho are spurious lando*ners, have been accepted assureties. The 6ecretar( then suggested that 1$i't !a( be a good polic( not to accept

as bail bonds real properties not covered b( certificate of title unless the( have beendeclared for ta8ation purposes in favor of the person offering the! as bond for atleast five $7' (ears.1

Basicall(, reason is *ith this require!ent. &ts purpose, so the circular states, is to 1prevent theco!!ission of frauds in connection *ith the posting of personal bail bonds and to protect theinterests of the overn!ent.1 Reall(, if the bonds!an is not the o*ner, bail fails of its purpose,pre5udice to the govern!ent sets in.1awphl.n!t


8/92

reservoir *as uninhabited. oing there *as quite a long tre. &t usuall( too Rosaldiafifteen !inutes to negotiate the grass( path fro! the reservoir to their house.

&n )#@#, Ro!eo engaged the services of Ale8 Manallo, as coconut gatherer.""F Ale8helped the Nabor couple gather coconut produce once a *ee.;;F 9e *as paid P)7.per da( for his services.

&n the earl( !orning of March ;, )##", Diliosa left their house for the !aret.Rosaldia *ent to the reservoir to *ash her clothes bringing *ith her a pail and a basin.6he *ore a t-shirt and a pair of short pants. After *ashing her clothes, Rosaldia too aquic bath.//F At around ))= a.!. Rosaldia , *ho *as drenched all over, left thereservoir and treed the sa!e route in going ho!e. 0n her *a(, Ale8 suddenl(appeared fro! the bushes and grabbed Rosaldia fro! behind. Ale8 *as co!pletel(naed. 9e covered her !outh and poed a nife on her nec. Rosaldia dropped thebasin and the pail she *as carr(ing and fought *ith Ale8 to e8tricate herself fro! hisclutches. 9o*ever, he *as too strong for her. Ale8 dragged her to a grass( portion,pulled her do*n and pinned her to the ground.77F 6he cried and shouted for help, at the

sa!e ti!e, resisting Ale8Gs advances. 9o*ever, *hen Ale8 bo8ed Rosaldia on her thighs and on her abdo!en, she lost consciousness.


9/92

& E findings=

-9(!en *ith fresh bleeding, lacerations at ;= oGcloc, 7= oGcloc, += oGcloc,@= oGcloc positions.

-Cervi8 s!ooth, s!all and fir!

-Adne8a $-'-


10/92

court to cancel the bond of Ale8 considering that his petition for bail *as granted *ithoutdue hearing. 9o*ever, the trial court held in abe(ance resolution of the !otion until after the prosecutor shall have presented its *itnesses on une )@, )##". The trial courtstated that the evidence to be adduced b( the prosecution *ould be its evidence in

Ale8Gs petition for bail and trial on the !erits. 0n une )@, )##", the trial court issued an

order that Ale8 *ould re!ain free on his bond until une "", )##", the date set for thehearing on his petition for bail. 9o*ever, Ale8 failed to attend the trial on said date. Thetrial court issued and order for his arrest. 9o*ever, Ale8 could no longer be found at hisaddress. &t *as onl( si8 (ears thereafter, or on anuar( "", )##@, that he *as arrested. )+)+F


11/92

confession, his *ife Teresita cried and got angr(.)4)4F

Teresita Manallo testified that *hen she visited her husband, Ale8, in his cell after his arrest, he confided to her that he had alread( ad!itted the charge. 6he lie*isetestified that Ale8 had instructed her to tal to Diliosa and as her forgiveness and if possible to settle the !atter *ith the Nabors. 6he clai!ed that on her *a( out of the

!unicipal 5ail she chanced upon the Nabors and rela(ed to the! the instructions of Ale8. 9o*ever, the Nabors re5ected the offer of settle!ent. Diliosa *as resolute in filinga case against Ale8.

0n April "7, ", the trial court rendered its decision )@)@F finding Ale8 guilt( ascharged, the dispositive portion of the decision reads=

8%EREORE, pre!ises considered, the accused e: Mo is hereb( found+)/t; be(ond reasonable doubt of the cri!e of rape b( using force and inti!idation asdefined and penalied under Art. ;;7 $)' of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereb(sentenced to suffer the penalt( of i!prison!ent of Reclusion Perpetua# to pa(co!plainant P47,. as inde!nit( , P7,. as !oral da!ages and the costs.

60 0R2ERE2.)#)#F

Aggrieved b( the decision, Ale8 appealed to this Court contending that=

T9E TR&AD C03RT RALED ERRE2 &N C0NL&CT&N ACC36E2-APPEDDANTN0T 0N T9E BA6&6 0% T9E 6TRENT9 0% T9E PR06EC3T&0NG6 EL&2ENCEB3T RAT9ER 0N T9E


12/92

alleged se8ual assault credibl( established the truth of her charge.

After the accused left her, she ca!e ho!e running and shouting for help becauseshe *as raped. 3pon arrival at her house she spontaneousl( told her !other, she *asraped b( the accused. The( i!!ediatel( reported to the baranga( authorities, then tothe police.

The findings of 2r. %lorece clearl( supports co!plainantGs stor(. 6he e8a!ined theco!plainant at )"=)7 p.!. of March ;, )##", *hich *as about one hour after the rape.The e8ternal ph(sical e8a!ination sho*ed a contusion on her right chee and ahe!ato!a on her right thigh near the nee. These in5uries is co!patible *ith theco!plainantGs testi!on( that she *as slapped in her face and bo8ed in her thigh b( theaccused as a result of *hich she lost consciousness.

The internal e8a!ination sho*ed fresh bleeding h(!enal lacerations at ;=, 7=,+= and @= oGcloc positions, !eaning these lacerations *ere sustained about oneor t*o hours before the e8a!ination because h(!enal laceration stops bleeding after one or t*o hours sa(s 2r. %lorece. There *ere lacerations because co!plainant *asstill a virgin according to 2r. %lorece. The !otile sper! cells *ere !oving and alive as

found b( 2r. %lorece. These circu!stances clearl( sho* that the rape *as co!!ittedon March ;, )##" and that there *as no such se8ual intercourse on March "4, ";.These lacerations also indicate that the penis *as forcibl( inserted into the vagina.$$eople vs. $e%ero, "4+ 6CRA 7+/'

2r. %lorece, found a contusion on the right chee of co!plainant, a reddishcoloration of the sin, slightl( elevated or infla!ed, a he!ato!a on the right thigh near the nee, there *as accu!ulation of clotted blood. The contusion on the right cheeand the he!ato!a on the right thigh could have been caused b( a fistic blo* or b(slapping. The h(!enal fresh bleeding lacerations could have been caused b( a penisin a se8ual intercourse about an hour and a half before her e8a!ination becauseh(!enal laceration stops in one to t*o hours. There *ere lacerations because theco!plainant *as a virgin. The !otile sper! cells found in the cervi8 *ere alive

indicating a recent se8ual intercourse. All the foregoing facts and circu!stances clearl(and indubitabl( prove that co!plainant Rosaldia Nabor *as raped b( the accused

Ale8 Manallo on March ;, )##" at about ))= a.!.""""F

The trial court considered appellantGs flight fro! the scene of the cri!e, his having 5u!ped bail and for eluding arrest for si8 long (ears as evidence of his guilt for the cri!echarged=

. Besides, the flight of the accused in 5u!ping bail and going into hiding for $+'(ears is evidence of his guilt. 9e *ould not have fled if his stor( is true. The court notedthat during the (ears that the accused *as in hiding, the co!plainant *as relentless inher efforts to locate the accused so that he !a( be arrested. Co!plainantGs de!eanor

in court sho*ed insincerit(.

";";F

Rosaldia described ho* appellant *a(laid her, forcibl( dragged her to the grass(area, pinned her to the ground and *hen she resisted, he hit her *ith his fist, renderingher unconscious and *hen she regained consciousness, she discovered that she hadbeen deflo*ered b( the appellant, thus=

22

23

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116292.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116292.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116292.htm


13/92

PR06. 2E ME6A=

QMs.

A es, sir.

Q


14/92


15/92

credibilit( to the rape charge *ith the verit( born out of hu!an nature and e8perience. "7"7F

0n revie*, the Court find that the testi!on( of Rosaldia bears the hall!ars of truth. &t is consistent on !aterial points. The rule is that *hen a rape victi!s testi!on(is straightfor*ard and candid, unshaen b( rigid cross-e8a!ination and unfla*ed b(

inconsistencies or contradictions in its !aterial points, the sa!e !ust be given full faithand credit. &t is a *ell-entrenched 5urisprudential rule that the credibilit( of a rape victi!is aug!ented *hen she has no !otive to testif( against the appellant or *here there isabsolutel( no evidence *hich even re!otel( suggest that she could have been actuatedb( such !otive."+"+F

RosaldiaGs testi!on( is buttressed b( the !edico-legal findings of 2r. %lorece. Thefresh lacerations in RosaldiaGs h(!en are the telling and irrefutable, the best ph(sicalevidence of her defloration. The presence of !otile sper! cells in the victi!Gs violatedorgan affir!s her charge !ore than *ords and anger alone could prove. "4"4F 9er contusion on the right chee and he!ato!a on the right thigh are a!ple proof of struggle and resistance against rape. These ph(sical evidence sho*ing the use of brutal force on the victi! *hen she *as se8uall( assaulted certainl( speas louder than*ords."@"@F &n countless cases, *e have taen 5udicial notice of the fact that it is highl(inconceivable for a (oung barrio lass, ine8perienced *ith the *a(s of the *orld, tofabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a !edical e8a!ination of her private parts,sub5ect herself to public trial and tarnish her fa!il(s honor and reputation unless she*as !otivated b( a potent desire to see 5ustice for the *rong co!!itted against her."#"#F

The trial court is correct in discounting the s*eetheart defense of appellant. 9efailed to establish the e8istence of such relationship. Rosaldia specificall( denied thatappellant *as ever her s*eetheart. &n $eople vs. Apostol ,;;F this court said thatsweetheart defense is a !uch-abused defense that rashl( derides the intelligence of the

Court and sorel( tests its patience. Being an affir!ative defense, the allegation of a loveaffair !ust be supported b( convincing proof.;);)F 9e failed to discharge this burden.0ther than his self-serving assertions and those of his *ife, there *as no support to hisclai! that he and co!plainant *ere lovers. 9is sweetheart defense cannot be givencredence in the absence of corroborative proof lie love notes, !e!entos, pictures or toens;";"F that such ro!antic relationship reall( e8isted. Even if *e assu!ed, for thenonce, that appellant and Rosaldia *ere indeed lovers, this fact *ould not haveprecluded rape, as it did not necessaril( !ean there *as consent. A love affair *ouldnot have 5ustified *hat appellant did I sub5ecting Rosaldia to his carnal desires againsther *ill.;;;;F No (oung filipina of decent refute *ould publicl( ad!it she had been raped

2526

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/123267_68.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/123267_68.htm


16/92

unless that *as the truth. Even in these !odern ti!es, this principle still holds true.2efinitel(, a !an cannot de!and se8ual gratification fro! a fiancee and, *orse, e!plo(violence upon her on the prete8t of love. Dove is not a license for lust. ;/;/F

The Court has taen 5udicial cogniance of the fact that in rural areas in this countr(,(oung ladies b( custo! and tradition act *ith circu!spection and prudence, and that

great caution is observed so that their reputation re!ains untainted. ;7;7F Even assu!ingarguendo that the offended part( *as a girl of loose !orals, as clai!ed b( appellant, itis settled that !oral character is i!!aterial in the prosecution and conviction for rapefor even prostitutes can be rape victi!s;+;+F.

The case for the prosecution *as even fortified b( no less than the evidence of theappellant. 9is *ife Teresita testified that he instructed her to plead for RosaldiaGsforgiveness and for the settle!ent of the case, and in obedience to said instruction,Teresita did rela( Ale8Gs plea for forgiveness and for an a!icable settle!ent to Diliosa,the !other of the victi! but that Diliosa turned do*n appellantGs plea=

ATT. M3S06 =

QAnd so *hen (our !other-in-la* ca!e bac fro! the !unicipal 5ail telling (ou that(ouGll be the one to go there because she cannot stand her son being beaten b(the police!an, *hat did (ou do>

A & *ent to the !unicipal 5ail of Ca!alig, sir.

Q And *hat *as the ti!e that (ou *ent to the !unicipal 5ail of Ca!alig>

A About )= oGcloc in the afternoon, sir.

Q And *hen (ou arrived at the place, *ho *ere those person (ou sa* in the!unicipal hall, if an(>

A & proceeded first to Ale8 Manallo at the !unicipal 5ail of Ca!alig, sir.

Q And did (ou as Ale8 Manallo an(thing *h( he *as arrested>

A es, sir.

Q And *hat did he tell (ou>

A Ale8 Manallo infor!ed !e that he alread( ad!itted the act, and instructed !e toas forgiveness fro! the !other for !e, or if not to settle the !atter, sir.

Q &s that all (ou ased of hi!>

A es, sir.

Q 2id (ou as hi! so!ething !ore>

A No !ore, sir. & alread( *ent out of the 5ail.

C03RT to *itness=


17/92

Q

A 9e did not na!e, sir.

Q All right, *hen (our husband told (ou that (ou as forgiveness fro! the !other for !e, *ho is that !other, *ho is that person referred to as the !other that (ou aresupposed to as forgiveness for (our husband>

A The !other of the co!plainant, sir.

Q And *ho is the co!plainant>

A Rosaldia Nabor, sir. ;4;4F

&n a case of si!ilar factual bacdrop, the Court considered a plea for forgivenessand for a settle!ent of the case as an i!plied ad!ission of guilt=

Moreover, an( scintilla of doubt both as to the identification of the accused and asto his guilt *as dissolved b( the overtures of his parents, *ife, children and sister-in-la* on pleading for forgiveness fro! ilda. The accused did not diso*n their acts,*hich *ere testified to b( his u!adre, Resurreccion Talub Quiocho, and ilda herself.

9e chose not to den( their testi!on(. %inall(, despite the unequivocal pronounce!entb( the trial court that his guilt *as 1strongl( established b( the acts of his parents, *ifeand relatives, *ho had gone to the house of the victi! to as her forgiveness and tosee a co!pro!ise,1 the accused dared not assign that finding and conclusion as anerror and his Appellants Brief is conspicuousl( silent thereon. &ndubitabl( then, theaccused *as a part( to the decision to see for forgiveness, or had prior no*ledge of the plan to see for it and consented to pursue it, or confir!ed and ratified the act of his parents, *ife, children and sister-in-la*. A plea for forgiveness !a( be consideredas analogous to an atte!pt to co!pro!ise. &n cri!inal cases, e8cept those involvingquasi-offense $cri!inal negligence' or those allo*ed b( la* to be co!pro!ised, anoffer of co!pro!ise b( the accused !a( be received in evidence as an i!pliedad!ission of guilt. No one *ould as for forgiveness unless he had co!!itted so!e

*rong, for to forgive !eans to absolve, to pardon, to cease to feel resent!ent againston account of *rong co!!itted: give up clai! to requital fro! or retribution upon $anoffender'. &n People vs. Cali!qui!, *e stated=

The fact that appellants !other sought forgiveness for her son fro! Coraonsfather is an indication of guilt. $&ee $eople vs. 'lmedillo, D-/"++, August ;, )#@",))+ 6CRA )#;'. ;@;@F

This Court agrees *ith the trial court that the appellant is guilt( of rape under Article;;7 of Revised Penal Code as a!ended. The use b( the appellant of a nife toconsu!!ate the cri!e is a special aggravating circu!stance *hich *arrants thei!position of the penalt( of reclusion perpetua to death. 9o*ever, considering that the

prosecution failed to prove an( other aggravating circu!stance in the co!!ission of thecri!e, the trial court correctl( i!posed the penalt( of reclusion perpetua confor!abl(*ith Article +; of the Revised Penal Code.

Anent the a*ard of da!ages, the trial court has correctl( a*arded P7,. as!oral da!ages, an a*ard that rests on the 5ural foundation that the cri!e of rape

37

38


18/92

necessaril( brings *ith it sha!e, !ental anguish, bes!irched reputation, !oral shocand social hu!iliation. ;#;#F

The a*ard of P47,. as civil inde!nit( should be reduced to P7,. in line*ith this CourtGs ruling in $eople vs. (anela#)* /F that if the cri!e of rape *as co!!ittedbefore the effectivit( Republic Act No. 4+7# /)/)F, the a!endator( la* restoring death

penalt(, the civil inde!nit( to be a*arded to the offended part( shall re!ain to beP7,..

Moreover, e8e!plar( da!ages in the a!ount of P"7. should be a*ardedpursuant to our ruling in $eople vs. +atubig #), /"F that the a*ard for e8e!plar( da!agesis 5ustified pursuant to Art. ""; of the Ne* Civil Code. 6ince the special aggravatingcircu!stance of the use of a deadl( *eapon *as attendant in the co!!ission of therape, the offended part( is entitled to e8e!plar( da!ages.

The Court cannot *rite finis to this case *ithout !aing of record its concern anddispleasure at the egregious procedural lapse of the trial court in granting bail toappellant. &t bears stressing that he *as charged *ith rape punishable b( reclusion

perpetua to death. 6ection 7, Rule ))/ of the )#@7 Rules of Cri!inal Procedure reads=6EC. 7. (urden of proof in (ail application. I At the hearing of an application for

ad!ission to bail filed b( an( person *ho is in custod( for the co!!ission of anoffense punishable b( reclusion perpetua to death, the prosecution has the burden of sho*ing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bailhearings shall be considered auto!aticall( reproduced at the trial, but upon !otion of either part(, the court !a( recall an( *itness for additional e8a!ination unless the*itness is dead, outside of the Philippines or other*ise unable to testif(. $4a'/;/;F

The trial court as !andated, in resolving a !otion or petition for bail, to do thefollo*ing=

). &n all cases, *hether bail is a !atter of right or discretion, notif( the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require hi! to sub!it hisreco!!endation $6ection )@, Rule ))/ of the Rules of Court, as a!ended':

".


19/92

&n this case, the appellant filed his !otion for bail on Ma( @, )##". There *as nospecific date and ti!e for the hearing of said !otion. And (et, on the sa!e da( that the!otion *as filed, the trial court granted the said !otion and fi8ed the bail bond for theprovisional libert( of the appellant in the a!ount of P7,. *ithout an( factual basistherefore stated in the order. Even *hen the public prosecutor pra(ed the court on une

)4, )##", for the cancellation of the propert( bond of the appellant on the ground thatthe trial court granted his !otion for bail *ithout even affording the prosecution achance to be heard thereon and adduce its evidence in opposition thereto, the trial courtheld in abe(ance resolution thereof and even allo*ed the appellant to re!ain free onhis bond in the a!ount of onl( P7,.. Patentl(, the prosecution *as deprived of itsright to due process. &n o vs. udge Bongolan, et. al .,/7/7F this Court e!phasied that=

A bail application does not onl( involve the right of the accused to te!porar(libert(, but lie*ise the right of the 6tate to protect the people and the peace of theco!!unit( fro! dangerous ele!ents. These t*o rights !ust be balanced b( a!agistrate in the scale of 5ustice, hence, the necessit( for hearing to guide his e8erciseof 5urisdiction./+/+F

The presiding 5udge of the trial court thus e8posed his gross ignorance of the la*. As a consequence, the appellant 5u!ped bail and !anaged to elude arrest for si8 (ears,to the pre5udice of the ad!inistration of 5ustice.

8%EREORE, pre!ises considered, the decision appealed fro! is hereb( A%%&RME2 *ith M02&%&CAT&0N. Appellant Ale8 Manallo is guilt( be(ond reasonabledoubt of rape under Article ;;7 of the Revised Penal Code as a!ended and is hereb(!eted the penalt( of -+/0&'N $-$20A. 9e is ordered to pa( to the victi!Rosaldia Nabor P7, as civil inde!nit(: P7, as !oral da!ages and P"7,as e8e!plar( da!ages.

Costs de oficio.

SO OR!ERE!.

PEOPLE O T%E P%#L#PP#NES, petitioner,vs.%ON. PROCORO (. !ONTO, / /0 o// p/t; 0 Pre0/*/+ ()*+e, Re+/o Tr/ Co)rt,'r #, M/< RO!OLO C. SLS, /0 Comm*er '/o+, respondents.

2he &olicitor 3eneral for petitioner.

4ose &uarez# -omeo +apulong# fren Mercado and Movement of Attorneys for (rotherhood#ntegrity# Nationalism# nc. 5MA(N6 for -odolfo &alas.

!"#!E, (R., J.: p

The People of the Philippines, through the Chief 6tate Prosecutor of the 2epart!ent of ustice, theCit( %iscal of Manila and the udge Advocate eneral, filed the instant petition forcertiorari and

45

46

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/am_98_12_377_rtc.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/am_98_12_377_rtc.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/am_98_12_377_rtc.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/am_98_12_377_rtc.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/am_98_12_377_rtc.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/am_98_12_377_rtc.htm


20/92


21/92

agree!ent of the parties under *hich herein private respondent 1*ill re!ain in legal custod( and *illface trial before the court having custod( over his person1 and the *arrants for the arrest of his co-accused are dee!ed recalled and the( shall be i!!ediatel( released but shall sub!it the!selves tothe court having 5urisdiction over their person.

0n Nove!ber 4, )#@+ , private respondent filed *ith the court belo* a Motion to Quash the

&nfor!ation alleging that= $a' the facts alleged do not constitute an offense: $b' the Court has no 5urisdiction over the offense charged: $c' the Court has no 5urisdiction over the persons of thedefendants: and $d' the cri!inal action or liabilit( has been e8tinguished, 6 to *hich petitioner filed an0pposition 7 citing , a!ong other grounds, the fact that in the oint Manifestation and Motion dated0ctober )/, )#@+, in .R. No. 4+#, private respondent categoricall( conceded that=

888 888 888

Par. " $B' ? Petitioner Rodolfo 6alas *ill re!ain in legal custody and facetrial before the court having custod( over his person.

&n his 0rder of March +, )#@4, > respondent udge denied the !otion to quash.

&nstead of asing for a reconsideration of said 0rder, private respondent filed on # Ma( )#@4 apetition for bail, 9 *hich herein petitioner opposed in an 0pposition filed on "4 Ma( )#@4 1? on theground that since rebellion beca!e a capital offense under the provisions of P.2. Nos. )##+, #/"and )@;/, *hich a!ended Article );7 of the Revised Penal Code, b( i!posing the penalt( ofreclusion perpetua to death on those *ho pro!ote, !aintain, or head a rebellion the accused is nolonger entitled to bail as evidence of his guilt is strong.

0n 7 une )#@4 the President issued E8ecutive 0rder No. )@4 repealing, a!ong others, P.2. Nos.)##+, #/" and )@;/ and restoring to full force and effect Article );7 of the Revised Penal Code as ite8isted before the a!endator( decrees. Thus, the original penalt( for rebellion, prision mayor and afine not to e8ceed P",., *as restored.

E8ecutive 0rder No. )@4 *as published in the 0fficial aette in its une )7, )#@4 issue $Lol. @;,No. "/' *hich *as officiall( released for circulation on une "+, )#@4.

&n his 0rder of 4 ul( )#@4 11 respondent udge, taing into consideration E8ecutive 0rder No. )@4,granted private respondents petition for bail, fi8ed the bail bond at P;,. and i!posed uponprivate respondent the additional condition that he shall report to the court once ever( t*o $"'!onths *ithin the first ten $)' da(s of ever( period thereof. &n granting the petition respondentudge stated=

. . . There is no !ore debate that *ith the effectivit( of E8ecutive 0rder No.)@4, the offense of rebellion, for *hich accused Rodolfo 6alas is hereincharged, is no* punishable *ith the penalt( of prision mayor and a fine note8ceeding P",., *hich !aes it no* bailable pursuant to 6ection );, Article &&&, )#@+ Constitution and 6ection ;, Rule ))/, )#@7 Rules of Cri!inalProcedure. 3nlie the old rule, bail is no* a !atter of right in non-capitaloffenses before final 5udg!ent. This is ver( evident upon a reading of 6ection;, Rule ))/, afore!entioned, in relation to 6ection "), sa!e rule. &n vie*,therefore, of the present circu!stances in this case, said accused-applicantis no* entitled to bail as a !atter of right inas!uch as the cri!e of rebellionceased to be a capital offense.


22/92


23/92


24/92

3nable to agree *ith said 0rder, petitioner co!!enced this petition sub!itting therein the follo*ingissues=

T9E 90N0RABDE RE6P0N2ENT 32E PR0C0R0 . 20NAT0 ACTE2


25/92

&&&

RE6P0N2ENT 6ADA6 &6 N0T C9ARE2


26/92

application for bail E8ecutive 0rder No. )@4 *as issued b( the President, b( virtue of *hich thepenalt( for rebellion as originall( provided for in Article );7 of the Revised Penal Code *as restored.The restored la* *as the governing la* at the ti!e the respondent court resolved the petition forbail.


27/92


28/92

&t !ust, ho*ever, be stressed that under the present state of the la*, rebellion is no longerpunishable b( prision mayor and fine not e8ceeding P",.. Republic Act No. +#+@ approved on"/ 0ctober )## and *hich too effect after publication in at least t*o ne*spapers of generalcirculation, a!ended, a!ong others, Article );7 of the Revised Penal Code b( increasing thepenalt( for rebellion such that, as a!ended, it no* reads=

Article );7. $enalty for rebellion# insurrection or coup d


29/92

the N2% panel involved in peace negotiations *ith the overn!ent: neither is he and hisco!panions Cru and Concepcion covered b( an(, safe conduct pass issued b( co!petentauthorities.

;. At the hearing on )/ 0ctober )#@+ the parties infor!ed the Court of certain agree!ents reachedbet*een the!.


30/92


31/92


32/92


33/92


34/92


35/92


36/92

AN2 ANE 20E6:

$c'b( directing, ordering and co!pelling %0R 9&6 PER60NAD A&N AN2 BENE%&T,the overn!ent 6ervice &nsurance 6(ste! $6&6' T0 P3RC9A6E, ;7),@4@,69ARE6 0% 6T0C6, M0RE 0R DE66, and the 6ocial 6ecurit( 6(ste! $666',;"#,@77, 69ARE6 0% 6T0C, M0RE 0R DE66, 0% T9E BEDDE

C0RP0RAT&0N &N T9E AM03NT 0% M0RE 0R DE66 0NE B&DD&0N 0NE93N2RE2 T


37/92

in Cri!inal Case No. "+77@ finding probable cause to 5ustif( the issuance of *arrants of arrest for the accused, including petitioner. Accordingl(, the 6andiganba(an issued an0rder on the sa!e date for the arrest of petitioner.7)7F


38/92

the case, directed the other accused to participate in the said bail hearing consideringthat under 6ection @, Rule ))/ of the Revised Rules of Court, *hatever evidence isadduced during the bail hearing shall be considered auto!aticall( reproduced at thetrial.7/@F

9o*ever, instead of proceeding *ith the bail hearing set b( it on une )@, "), the

6andiganba(an issued an 0rder on une )7, ") canceling the said bail hearing dueto pending incidents (et to be resolved and reset ane* the hearing to une "+, "). 77#F

0n the eve of said hearing, the 6andiganba(an issued a resolution den(ingpetitionerGs !otion for reconsideration of its Ma( ;), ") Resolution. The bail hearingon une "+, ") did not again proceed because on said date petitioner filed *ith the6andiganba(an a !otion to quash the a!ended &nfor!ation on the grounds that asagainst hi!, the a!ended &nfor!ation does not allege a co!bination or series of overtor cri!inal acts constitutive of plunder: as against hi!, the a!ended &nfor!ation doesnot allege a pattern of cri!inal acts indicative of an overall unla*ful sche!e or conspirac(: the !one( alleged in paragraph $a' of the a!ended &nfor!ation to have

been illegall( received or collected does not constitute ill-gotten *ealthO as defined in6ection )$d' of Republic Act No. 4@: and the a!ended &nfor!ation charges hi! of briber( and illegal ga!bling.7+)F B( *a( of riposte, the prosecution ob5ected to theholding of bail hearing until petitioner agreed to *ithdra* his !otion to quash. Theprosecution contended that petitionerGs !otion to quash the a!ended &nfor!ation *asantithetical to his petition for bail.

The 6andiganba(an reset the arraign!ent of accused and the hearing on thepetition for bail of petitioner in Cri!inal Case No. "+77@ for ul( ), ") to enable it toresolve the pending incidents and the !otion to quash of petitioner. 9o*ever, evenbefore the 6andiganba(an could resolve the pending !otions of petitioner and theprosecution, petitioner filed *ith this Court on une "#, ") a Petition for 9abeas

+orpus and Certiorari, doceted as .R. No. )/@/+@, pra(ing that the Court declarevoid the questioned orders, resolutions and actions of the 6andiganba(an on his clai!that he *as thereb( effectivel( denied of his right to due process. Petitioner lie*isepra(ed for the issuance of a *rit of habeas corpus: that the People be declared to have*aived their right to present evidence in opposition to his petition for bail: and, pre!isedon the failure of the People to adduce strong evidence of petitionerGs guilt of plunder,that he be granted provisional libert( on bail after due proceedings. 74))F

Mean*hile, on une "@, "), ose inggo(O Estrada filed *ith the 6andiganba(ana !otion pra(ing that said court resolve his !otion to fi8 his bail.

0n ul( #, "), the 6andiganba(an issued a Resolution den(ing petitionerGs

!otion to quash the a!ended &nfor!ation. Petitioner, through counsel, received on saiddate a cop( of said resolution.7@)"F The !otion to fi8 bail filed b( ose inggo(O Estrada*as also resolved b( the 6andiganba(an.

54

55

56

57

58


39/92


40/92


41/92


42/92


43/92


44/92

absolute lac of evidence to support a finding of probable cause for plunder as againsthi!,@;/F and hence he should be spared fro! the inconvenience, burden and e8pense of a public trial.@);7F

Petitioner also avers that the discretion of govern!ent prosecutors is not be(ond 5udicial scrutin(. 9e asserts that *hile this Court does not ordinaril( loo into the

e8istence of probable cause to charge a person for an offense in a given case, it !a(do so in e8ceptional circu!stances, *hich are present in this case= $)' to affordadequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused: $"' for the orderl(ad!inistration of 5ustice or to avoid oppression: $;' *hen the acts of the officer are*ithout or in e8cess of authorit(: and $/' *here the charges are !anifestl( false and!otivated b( the lust for vengeance.@";+F Petitioner clai!s that he raised proper groundsfor a reinvestigation b( asserting that in issuing the questioned 5oint resolution, the0!buds!an disregarded evidence e8culpating petitioner fro! the charge of plunder and co!!itted errors of la* or irregularities *hich have been pre5udicial to his interest. @;;4F 9e also states that during the 5oint preli!inar( investigations for the various chargesagainst oseph Estrada and his associates, of *hich the plunder charge *as onl( one

of the eight charges against Estrada et al.# he *as not furnished *ith copies of the other co!plaints nor given the opportunit( to refute the evidence presented in relation to theother seven cases, even though the evidence presented therein *ere also used againsthi!, although he *as onl( charged in the plunder case.@/;@F

The People !aintain that the 6andiganba(an co!!itted no grave abuse of discretion in den(ing petitionerGs o!nibus !otion. The( assert that since the0!buds!an found probable cause to charge petitioner *ith the cri!e of plunder, the6andiganba(an is bound to assu!e 5urisdiction over the case and to proceed to tr( thesa!e. The( further argue that a finding of probable cause is !erel( preli!inar( andprefator( of the eventual deter!ination of guilt or innocence of the accused,O and that

petitioner still has the chance to interpose his defenses in a full blo*n trial *here hisguilt or innocence !a( finall( be deter!ined.@7;#F

The People also point out that the 6andiganba(an did not co!!it grave abuse of discretion in den(ing petitionerGs o!nibus !otion asing for, a!ong others, areinvestigation b( the 0!buds!an, because his !otion for reconsideration of the0!buds!anGs 5oint resolution did not raise the grounds of either ne*l( discoveredevidence, or errors of la* or irregularities, *hich under Republic Act No. +44 are theonl( grounds upon *hich a !otion for reconsideration !a( be filed. @+/F

The People lie*ise insist that there e8ists probable cause to charge petitioner *ithplunder as a co-conspirator of oseph Estrada.@4/)F

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87


45/92


46/92


47/92

Absent an( sho*ing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or an( other officer authoried to conduct preli!inar( investigation, courts as a rule !ust defer tosaid officerGs finding and deter!ination of probable cause, since the deter!ination of thee8istence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.#47)F The Court agrees *iththe 6andiganba(an that petitioner failed to establish that the preli!inar( investigation

conducted b( the 0!buds!an *as tainted *ith irregularit( or that its findings stated inthe 5oint resolution dated April /, ") are not supported b( the facts, and that areinvestigation *as necessar(.

Certiorari *ill not lie to invalidate the 6andiganba(anGs resolution den(ingpetitionerGs !otion for reinvestigation since there is nothing to substantiate petitionerGsclai! that it gravel( abused its discretion in ruling that there *as no need to conduct areinvestigation of the case.#@7"F

The ruling in -olito 3o vs. +ourt of AppealsFFE DJG that an accused shall not be dee!edto have *aived his right to as for a preli!inar( investigation after he had beenarraigned over his ob5ection and despite his insistence on the conduct of said

investigation prior to trial on the !erits does not appl( in the instant case becausepetitioner !erel( pra(ed for a reinvestigation on the ground of a ne*l(-discoveredevidence. &rrefragabl(, a preli!inar( investigation had been conducted b( the0!buds!an prior to the filing of the a!ended &nfor!ation, and that petitioner hadparticipated therein b( filing his counter-affidavit. %urther!ore, the 6andiganba(an hadalread( denied his !otion for reinvestigation as *ell as his !otion for reconsiderationthereon prior to his arraign!ent.)7/F &n su! then, the petition is dis!issed.

Re G.R. No. 1=>=6>

As s(nthesied b( the Court fro! the petition and the pleadings of the parties, theissues for resolution are= $)'


48/92


49/92

The contention of petitioner is *ell-taen. The arraign!ent of an accused is not aprerequisite to the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allo*ed topetition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his libert( b( virtue of his arrest or voluntar(surrender.))+/F An accused need not *ait for his arraign!ent before filing a petition for bail.

&n /avides vs. +ourt of Appeals, )))+7F this Court ruled on the issue of *hether anaccused !ust first be arraigned before he !a( be granted bail. /avides involved anaccused charged *ith violation of 6ection 7$b' Republic Act No. 4+) $The 6pecialProtection of Children Against Abuse, E8ploitation and 2iscri!ination Act', an offensepunishable b( reclusion temporal in its !ediu! period to reclusion perpetua. Theaccused therein assailed, inter alia# the trial courtGs i!position of the condition that heshould first be arraigned before he is allo*ed to post bail.


50/92


51/92


52/92


53/92


54/92


55/92


56/92


57/92


58/92


59/92


60/92


61/92


62/92


63/92


64/92


65/92


66/92


67/92


68/92


69/92


70/92


71/92


72/92


73/92


74/92


75/92


76/92


77/92


78/92


79/92


80/92

outco/e left to the ,ecision /ae*$the Cou*t of Appeals in this

case? to *ule on applications fo* bail pen,in0 appeal /ust necessa*ily in+ol+e the

e4e*cise of 9u,0/ent on the pa*t of the cou*t$ -he cou*t /ust be allo.e,

*easonable latitu,e to e4p*ess its o.n +ie. of the case its app*eciation of the facts

an, its un,e*stan,in0 of the applicable la. on the /atte*$1!(;)F In +ie. of the 0*a+e

caution *e8ui*e, of it the cou*t shoul, consi,e* .hethe* o* not un,e* all

ci*cu/stances the accuse, .ill be p*esent to abi,e by his punish/ent if his

con+iction is affi*/e,$1!";"F

It shoul, also 0i+e ,ue *e0a*, to any othe* pe*tinent

/atte*s beyon, the *eco*, of the pa*ticula* case such as the *eco*, cha*acte* an,

193

194

195

196


81/92


82/92


83/92


84/92


85/92

-he si0nificance of the abo+e chan0es .as cla*ifie, in A,/inist*ati+e

Ci*cula* No$ 6&!6 ,ate, Janua*y 65 1!!6 as follo.s

-he basic 0o+e*nin0 p*inciple on the *i0ht of the accuse, to bail is lai, ,o.n in

Section 3 of Rule 11' of the 1!( Rules on C*i/inal P*oce,u*e as a/en,e, .hich

p*o+i,es

Sec$ 3$ Bail a /atte* of *i0ht e4ception$ K All pe*sons in custo,y

shall befo*e final con+iction be entitle, to bail as a /atte* of *i0ht e4cept thosecha*0e, .ith a capital offense o* an offense .hich un,e* the la. at the ti/e of

its co//ission an, at the ti/e of the application fo* bail is punishable by

reclusion perpetua .hen e+i,ence of 0uilt is st*on0$

Pu*suant to the afo*ecite, p*o+ision an accuse, .ho is cha*0e, .ith a capitaloffense o* an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shall no lon0e* be entitle, to bail

as a /atte* of *i0ht e+en if he appeals the case to this Cou*t since his con+iction clea*ly

i/po*ts that the e+i,ence of his 0uilt of the offense cha*0e, is st*on0$

=ence fo* the 0ui,elines of the bench an, ba* .ith *espect to futu*e as .ell as

pen,in0 cases befo*e the t*ial cou*ts this Cou*t en banc lays ,o.n the follo.in0 policies

conce*nin0 the effecti+ity of the bail of the accuse, to .it

1? @hen an accuse, is cha*0e, .ith an offense .hich un,e* the la.

e4istin0 at the ti/e of its co//ission an, at the ti/e of the application fo* bail is

punishable by a penalty lo.e* than reclusion perpetua an, is out on bail an, afte* t*ial is

con+icte, by the t*ial cou*t of the offense cha*0e, o* of a lesse* offense than that cha*0e,in the co/plaint o* info*/ation he /ay be allo.e, to *e/ain f*ee on his o*i0inal bail

pen,in0 the *esolution of his appeal unless the p*ope* cou*t ,i*ects othe*.ise pu*suant to

Rule 11' Sec$ 6 >a? of the Rules of Cou*t as a/en,e,

6? 9h"n an accus" is cha%!" /ith a capita* #$$"ns" #% an #$$"ns"

/hich un"% th" *a/ at th" ti&" #$ its c#&&issi#n an at th" ti&" #$ th" app*icati#n

$#% 0ai* is punisha0*" 0y reclusion perpetua an is #ut #n 0ai*, an a$t"% t%ia* is

c#n)ict" 0y th" t%ia* c#u%t #$ a *"ss"% #$$"ns" than that cha%!" in th" c#&p*aint #%

in$#%&ati#n, th" sa&" %u*" s"t $#%th in th" p%"c"in! pa%a!%aph sha** 0" app*i"

3? @hen an accuse, is cha*0e, .ith a capital offense o* an offense .hich

un,e* the la. at the ti/e of its co//ission an, at the ti/e of the application fo* bail is punishable by reclusion perpetua an, is out on bail an, afte* t*ial is con+icte, by the t*ial

cou*t of the offense cha*0e, his bon, shall be cancelle, an, the accuse, shall be place,

in confine/ent pen,in0 *esolution of his appeal$

As to c*i/inal cases co+e*e, un,e* the thi*, *ule abo+ecite, .hich a*e no.

pen,in0 appeal befo*e his Cou*t .he*e the accuse, is still on p*o+isional libe*ty the

follo.in0 *ules a*e lai, ,o.n


86/92

1? -his Cou*t shall o*,e* the bon,s/an to su**en,e* the accuse, .ithin ten

>15? ,ays f*o/ notice to the cou*t of o*i0in$ -he bon,s/an the*eupon shall info*/ this

Cou*t of the fact of su**en,e* afte* .hich the cancellation of the bon, shall be o*,e*e,

by this Cou*t

6? -he R-C shall o*,e* the t*ans/ittal of the accuse, to the National

Bu*eau of P*isons th*u the Philippine National Police as the accuse, shall *e/ain un,e* confine/ent pen,in0 *esolution of his appeal

3? If the accuse,&appellant is not su**en,e*e, .ithin the afo*esai, pe*io, of

ten >15? ,ays his bon, shall be fo*feite, an, an o*,e* of a**est shall be issue, by thisCou*t$ -he appeal taen by the accuse, shall also be ,is/isse, un,e* Section Rule 16'

of the Re+ise, Rules of Cou*t as he shall be ,ee/e, to ha+e 9u/pe, his bail$ >e/phasis

supplie,?

A/en,/ents .e*e fu*the* int*o,uce, in A,/inist*ati+e Ci*cula* No$ 16&!'

,ate, Au0ust 1" 1!!' .hich b*ou0ht about i/po*tant chan0es in the sai, *ules as

follo.s

SEC-ION '$ Bail, a matter of ri/ht $ K All pe*sons in custo,y shall >a? befo*e

o* afte* con+iction by the Met*opolitan -*ial Cou*t Municipal -*ial Cou*t Municipal

-*ial Cou*t in Cities an, Municipal Ci*cuit -*ial Cou*t an, >b? befo*e con+iction by the

Re0ional -*ial Cou*t of an offense not punishable by ,eath reclusion perpetua o* life

i/p*ison/ent be a,/itte, to bail as a /atte* of *i0ht .ith sufficient su*eties o* be

*elease, on *eco0niance as p*esc*ibe, by la. of this Rule$ >3a?

SEC-ION ($ Bail, when discretionary$ K Up#n c#n)icti#n 0y th" R"!i#na*

T%ia* C#u%t #$ an #$$"ns" n#t punisha0*" 0y "ath, reclusion perpetua #% *i$"

i&p%is#n&"nt, th" c#u%t, #n app*icati#n, &ay a&it th" accus" t# 0ai*.

-he cou*t in its ,isc*etion /ay allo. the accuse, to continue on p*o+isional

libe*ty un,e* the sa/e bail bon, ,u*in0 the pe*io, of appeal sub9ect to the consent of the

bon,s/an$

I$ th" c#u%t i&p#s" a p"na*ty #$ i&p%is#n&"nt "c""in! si 123 y"a%s 0ut

n#t %" than t/"nty 1?@3 y"a%s, th" accus" sha** 0" "ni" 0ai*, #% his 0ai*

p%")i#us*y !%ant" sha** 0" canc"**", up#n a sh#/in! 0y th" p%#s"cuti#n, /ith

n#tic" t# th" accus", #$ th" $#**#/in! #% #th"% si&i*a% ci%cu&stanc"s+


87/92

1a3 That th" accus" is a %"cii)ist, 4uasi-%"cii)ist, #% ha0itua*

"*in4u"nt, #% has c#&&itt" th" c%i&" a!!%a)at" 0y th" ci%cu&stanc" #$

%"it"%ati#n5

103 That th" accus" is $#un t# ha)" p%")i#us*y "scap" $%#& *"!a*

c#n$in"&"nt, ")a" s"nt"nc" #% has )i#*at" th" c#niti#ns #$ his 0ai*/ith#ut )a*i 6usti$icati#n5

1c3 That th" accus" c#&&itt" th" #$$"ns" /hi*" #n p%#0ati#n, pa%#*",

un"% c#niti#na* pa%#n5

13 That th" ci%cu&stanc"s #$ th" accus" #% his cas" inicat" th"

p%#0a0i*ity #$ $*i!ht i$ %"*"as" #n 0ai*5 #%

1"3 That th"%" is unu" %is7 that u%in! th" p"n"ncy #$ th" app"a*, th"

accus" &ay c#&&it an#th"% c%i&".

-he appellate cou*t /ay *e+ie. the *esolution of the Re0ional -*ial Cou*t on/otion an, .ith notice to the a,+e*se pa*ty$ >n?

SEC-ION "$ Capital offense, defined $ K A capital offense as the te*/ is use,

in these Rules is an offense .hich un,e* the la. e4istin0 at the ti/e of its co//issionan, at the ti/e of the application to be a,/itte, to bail /aybe punishe, .ith ,eath$ >'?

SEC-ION )$ Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable$ K No pe*son cha*0e, .ith a capital offense o* an

offense punishable by reclusion perpetua o* life i/p*ison/ent .hen e+i,ence of 0uilt isst*on0 shall be a,/itte, to bail *e0a*,less of the sta0e of the c*i/inal p*osecution$>e/phasis supplie,?

-he abo+e a/en,/ents of A,/inist*ati+e Ci*cula* No$ 16&!' to Rule 11'

.e*e the*eafte* a/en,e, by A$M$ No$ 55&(&53&SC to *ea, as they ,o no.$

-he ,e+elop/ent o+e* ti/e of these *ules *e+eals an o*ientation to.a*,s a

/o*e *est*icti+e app*oach to bail pen,in0 appeal$ It in,icates a faithful a,he*ence


88/92


89/92


90/92


91/92


92/92

law crimpro cases bail

Documents