You are on page 1of 7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 114350 January 16, 1997
JOSE T. OBOSA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O APPEA!S an" PEOP!E O T#E P#$!$PP$NES, respondents.

PANGAN$BAN, J.:
The ain issue in this case is !hether petitioner "ose T. Obosa, !ho
!as charged !ith t!o #$% counts of murder #a capital offense%
1
for the abush
sla&in' of forer Secretar& of Interior and (ocal )overnents "aie N. *errer and
his driver "esus D. +alderon, but !ho !as convicted onl& of t!o #$% counts of
hoicide b& the trial court, a& be 'ranted bail after such conviction for hoicide, a
non,capital offense. The Re'ional Trial +ourt of Ma-ati ans!ered in the affirative
but the +ourt of .ppeals ruled other!ise.
Petitioner thus as-s this +ourt to resolve said issue in this petition under Rule /0
assailin' the t!o Resolutions
%
of the respondent +ourt
3
proul'ated on Noveber
12, 1223 and March 2, 1224, respectivel&. The first Resolution
4
of Noveber 12,
1223 disposed as follo!s5
5
6H7R7*OR7, the +ourt )R.NTS the Solicitor )eneral8s otion to cancel
accused,appellant "ose T. Obosa8s bailbond. The +ourt N9((I*I7S the
lo!er court8s order dated Ma& 31, 122:, 'rantin' bail to accused Obosa.
(et !arrant issue for the arrest of the accused,appellant "ose T. Obosa.
On the sae date, Noveber 12, 1223, an Order of .rrest a'ainst petitioner !as
issued under si'nature of then +ourt of .ppeals .ssociate "ustice ;ernardo P.
Pardo.
6
On Deceber <, 1223, petitioner filed a Motion to =uash 6arrant of .rrest and to Set
.side and Reconsider Resolution of Noveber 12,1223.
7
The second assailed
Resolution
&
proul'ated on March 2, 1224 denied the otion as follo!s5
IN VI76 6H7R7O*, the +ourt hereb& D7NI7S accused Obosa8s >Motion
to ?uash !arrant of arrest and to set aside and reconsider the resolution of
Noveber 12, 1223> dated Deceber 4, 1223, for lac- of erit.
(et a cop& of this resolution be 'iven to the Honorable, the Secretar& of
"ustice, Manila, so that he a& issue the appropriate directive to the
Director, ;ureau of +orrections, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, for the
rectification of the prison record of accused "ose T. Obosa.
The Facts
.side fro the disa'reeent as to the date !hen notice of appeal !as actuall& filed
!ith the trial court,
9
the facts precedent to this petition are undisputed as set out in
the first assailed Resolution, thus5
10
On Deceber 4, 12@<, Senior State Prosecutor .urelio +. Trape char'ed
the accused "ose T. Obosa and three others !ith urder on t!o counts, b&
separate aended inforations filed !ith the Re'ional Trial +ourt of Ma-ati,
;ranch 0/, for the abush,sla&in' of Secretar& of (ocal )overnents
"aie N. *errer and his driver "esus D. +alderon, !hich occurred on .u'ust
$, 12@<, at about /53: in the evenin', at (a Huerta, Para#A%a?ue, Metro
Manila, as Secretar& *errer !as ridin' in his car, 'oin' to the St. .ndre!
+hurch near the plaBa of (a Huerta, to hear Sunda& ass.
7ach inforation alle'ed that the -illin' !as !ith the attendance of the
follo!in' ?ualif&in'Ca''ravatin' circustances, to !it5 treacher&, evident
preeditation, abuse of superior stren'th, ni'httie purposel& sou'ht,
disre'ard of the respect due to the victi on account of his ran- and a'e #as
to Secretar& *errer%, and b& a band. The Prosecutor recoended no bail,
as the evidence of 'uilt !as stron'.
Durin' the trial of the t!o cases, !hich !ere consolidated and tried Dointl&,
the accused Obosa !as detained at +ap ;a'on' Di!a, Ta'ui', Metro
Manila.
.t the tie of the coission of the t!o offenses, the accused Obosa !as
a virtual >escapee> fro the National Penitentiar& at Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila, particularl&, at the Sapa'uita Detention Station, !here he !as
servin' a prison ter for robber& as a aEiu securit& prisoner.
Indeed, b& virtue of a subpoena ille'all& issued b& a Dud'e of the Municipal
Trial +ourt of Saria&a, =ueBon, accused Obosa !as escorted out of prison
to appear before said Dud'e on the preteEt that the Dud'e needed his
presence so that the Dud'e could in?uire about the !hereabouts of the
accused therein. 6hile accused Obosa !as out of prison, he !as able to
participate in the coission of the double urder no! char'ed a'ainst
1
hi as principal for the abush,sla&in' of Secretar& *errer and his driver
#(orenBo vs. Mar?ueB, 1/$ S+R. 04/, 003%.
6itnesses positivel& identified accused "ose T. Obosa as one of three
assassins firin' at a car near the canteen at the corner of Victor Medina
Street and =uirino .venue, Para#A%a?ue, Metro Manila. It !as the car of
Secretar& *errer. He sustained ei'ht entrance 'unshot !ounds on the ri'ht
side of his head, nec- and bod&, !hile his driver sustained three entrance
!ounds on the left teple, ri'ht side of the nec-, ri'ht ar, chest and ri'ht
hip. The& died on the spot.
In its decision dated Ma& $0, 122:, the lo!er court found the accused
Obosa 'uilt& be&ond reasonable doubt of hoicide on t!o
counts.
11
In rulin' that the crie coitted !as hoicide, not urder as
char'ed in the inforations, the lo!er court declared that there !as no
?ualif&in' circustance attendant. In fact, ho!ever, the lo!er court itself
found that the accused shot the victis !hile the latter !ere inside the car,
un!ar& of an& dan'er to their lives, for un-no!n to the, !ere the
assassins lur-in' in the dar-, firin' their 'uns fro behind, a circustance
indubitabl& sho!in' treacher& #People vs. Tachado, 1<: S+R. /11, People
vs. "uan'a, 1@2 S+R. $$/%. There is treacher& !hen the victis !ere
attac-ed !ithout !arnin' and their bac-s turned to the assailants, as in this
case #People vs. Tachado,supra%. There is treacher& !hen the unared and
unsuspectin' victi !as abushed in the dar-, !ithout an& ris- to his
assailants #People vs. 7'aras, 1/3 S+R. /2$%. Moreover, the cries could
be ?ualified b& ta-in' advanta'e of superior stren'th and aid of ared en
#People vs. ;alu&ot, 1<: S+R. 0/2%. 6here the attac-ers cooperated in
such a !a& to secure advanta'e of their cobined stren'th, there is present
the ?ualif&in' circustance of ta-in' advanta'e of superior stren'th #People
vs. ;alu&ot, supraF People vs. Malinao, 1@4 S+R. 14@%.
On Ma& 31, 122:, the lo!er court proul'ated its decision and on the sae
occasion, accused Obosa anifested his intention to appeal and as-ed the
+ourt to allo! hi to post bail for his provisional libert&. Iediatel&, the
lo!er court 'ranted accused Obosa8s otion and fiEed bail at P$:,:::.::,
in each case.
On "une 1, 122:, accused Obosa filed a !ritten notice of appeal, dated
"une 4, 122:, thereb& perfectin' appeal fro the decision #.laa vs.
.bbas, 1$4 Phil. 14/0%. ;& the perfection of the appeal, the lo!er court
thereb& lost Durisdiction over the case and this eans both the record and
the person of the accused,appellant. The sentencin' court lost Durisdiction
or po!er to do an&thin' or an& atter in relation to the person of the
accused,appellant #Director of Prisons vs. Teodoro, 2< Phil. 321, 320,32/%,
eEcept to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the ri'hts of the
parties, !hich do not involve an& atter liti'ated b& the appeal #People vs.
.randa, 1:/ Phil. 1::@%.
On "une 4, 122:, accused Obosa filed a bailbond in the aount of
P4:,:::.::, throu'h Plaridel Suret& and .ssurance +opan&, !hich the
lo!er court approved. On the sae da&, "une 4, 122:, the lo!er court
issued an order of release. The prison authorities at the National
Penitentiar& released accused Obosa also on the sae da& not!ithstandin'
that, as hereinabove stated, at the tie of the coission of the double
urder, accused Obosa !as servin' a prison ter for robber&.
The respondent +ourt li-e!ise discoursed on the service of sentence ade b& the
accused. Thus, it eEtensivel& discussed the follo!in' coputation on the penalties
iposed upon the petitioner for his previous offenses, !hich all the ore convinced
respondent +ourt that petitioner !as not entitled to bail on the date he applied
therefor on Ma& 31, 122: and filed his bailbond on "une 4, 122:, as follo!s5
1%
.t the tie the accused coitted the cries char'ed, he !as an inate at
the National Penitentiar&, Ne! ;ilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. He
!as in Dail, but !as able to coit the *errer assassination. He !as servin'
iprisonent b& final Dud'ent in each of three #3% cases, nael&, #a% theft,
for !hich he !as sentenced to eleven #11% onths and fifteen #10% da&s
of prision correccionalF #b% robber& in band, for !hich he !as sentenced to
an indeterinate penalt& of siE #/% onths and one #1% da& of prision
correccional, as iniu, to four #4% &ears, t!o #$% onths and one #1% da&
of prision correccional, as aEiu, and #c% evasion of service of sentence,
for !hich he !as sentenced to siE #/% onths of arresto mayor. These
sentences are to be served successivel& not siultaneousl& #.rticle <:,
Revised Penal +odeF People vs. Re&es, 0$ Phil. 03@F )ordon vs. 6olfe, /
Phil. </F People vs. Medina, 02 Phil. 134F 9nited States vs. +laravall, 31
Phil. /0$F People vs. Olfindo, 4< Phil. 1F People vs. Tan, 0: Phil. //:%. In
successive service of sentences, the tie of the second sentence did not
coence to run until the eEpiration of the first #)ordon vs. 6olfe, supra%.
He coenced service of sentence on October 11,12<2 #!ith credit for
preventive iprisonent% and !as aditted to the Ne! ;ilibid Prisons on
"anuar& 0, 12@: #See prison record attached to Suppleent, dated "anuar&
31, 1224 of the Solicitor )eneralF +f. prison record GincopleteH attached to
Manifestation dated *ebruar& $, 1224 of the .ccused .ppellant%.
On Deceber $0, 12@:, he escaped fro detention at *ort Del Pilar, ;a'uio
+it&, !here he !as teporaril& !or-in' on a prison proDect #See decision,
)ri. +ase No. 4102,R, Re'ional Trial +ourt, ;a'uio +it&, People vs. "ose
Obosa & TutaAa%. 6hile a fu'itive fro Dustice, he coitted other cries,
in =ueBon +it&, Ma-ati, and Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. The cases are
pendin' #See prison record, supra%.
He !as recaptured on .u'ust $<, 12@/. 9nder prison re'ulations, he
forfeited his allo!ance for 'ood conduct prescribed b& la! #.rticle 2<,
Revised Penal +odeF .ct $4@2 of the Philippine (e'islature%. In addition, he
2
ust serve the tie spent at lar'e #TS.(% of five #0% &ears, ei'ht #@% onths
and t!o #$% da&s, and the unserved portion of his successive sentences for
robber& in band, theft and evasion of service of sentence aforeentioned.
In su, he has to serve the balance of his sentence for robber& in band of
four #4% &ears, t!o #$% onths and one #1% da& of prision correccional the
sentence for theft of eleven #11% onths and fifteen #10% da&s of prision
correccionalF and the sentence for evasion of service of sentence of siE #/%
onths ofarresto mayor, reachin' a total of five #0% &ears, seven #<% onths
and siEteen #1/% da&s. Since his coitent to Dail on October 11, 12<2, to
the tie he escaped on Deceber $0, 12@:, he had served one #1% &ear,
t!o #$% onths, and fourteen #14% da&s, !hich, deducted fro the totalit& of
his prison ter, !ould leave a balance of four #4% &ears, five #0% onths and
t!o #$% da&s. Thus, he ust still serve this unserved portion of his
sentences in addition to the tie spent at lar'e. +ountin' the tie fro his
re,arrest on .u'ust $<, 12@/, and addin' thereto five #0% &ears, ei'ht #@%
onths and t!o #$% da&s #tie spent at lar'e%, the result is that he ust
serve up to .pril $2, 122$. To this shall be added the reainin' balance of
his successive sentences of four #4% &ears, five #0% onths and t!o #$%
da&#s%. +onse?uentl&, he has to serve sentence and reain in confineent
up to October 1, 122/. Of course, he a& be 'iven allo!ance for 'ood
conduct. ;ut 'ood conduct tie allo!ance can not be coputed in advance
#*ran- vs. 6olfe, 11 Phil. 4//%. This is counted onl& durin' the tie an
accused actuall& served !ith 'ood conduct and dili'ence #*ran- vs.
6olfe,supraF See .?uino, The Revised Penal +ode, Vol. I, 12@< ed., pp.
@:3,@:4%. Ho!ever, accused Obosa can not avail hiself of this beneficent
provision of the la! because, !hile he !as at lar'e, he coitted infraction
of prison rules #escapin'% and other cries, includin' the *errer
assassination, and for !hich he !as placed under preventive iprisonent
coencin' on Deceber 4, 12@<, the date the inforations at bar !ere
filed a'ainst hi. ;ecause he !as then under custod&, no !arrant of arrest
or coitent order need be issued #.suncion vs. PeraleDo, ).R. No.
@$210, "une $$, 12@@, inute resolutionF +f. People vs. 6ilson, 4 Phil. 3@1F
9il vs. Raos, 1@< S+R. 311%. .llo!ance for 'ood conduct does not
appl& to detention prisoners #;a-in' vs. Director of Prisons, $@ S+R. @01%.
+onse?uentl&, b& all rec-onin', accused Obosa could not be released fro
prison on "une 4, 122:, !hen he !as aditted to bail. His release !as
ille'al. He still has to serve the balance of his unserved sentences until
October 1, 122/.
On Septeber /, 1223, respondent People, throu'h the Office of the Solicitor
)eneral #OS)%, filed !ith respondent +ourt an ur'ent otion,
13
pra&in' for
cancellation of petitioner8s bail bond.
Petitioner proptl& filed an opposition,
14
to !hich respondent People subitted a
repl&.
15
Thereupon, respondent +ourt issued its first ?uestioned Resolution dated
Noveber 12, 12235
16
a% cancelin' petitioner8s bail bond, b% nullif&in' the trial court8s
order of Ma& 31, 122: !hich 'ranted bail to petitioner, and c% issuin' a !arrant for
his iediate arrest.
Petitioner8s t!in otions for reconsideration
17
and ?uashal of !arrant of arrest
proved futile as respondent +ourt, on March 2, 1224, after the parties8 additional
pleadin's !ere subitted and after hearin' the parties8 oral ar'uents, issued its
second ?uestioned Resolution den&in' said otions for lac- of erit.
The Issues
The petitioner !orded the issue in this case as follo!s5
1&
The principal constitutional and le'al issues involved in this petition is #sic%
!hether petitioner as accused,appellant before the respondent Honorable
+ourt of .ppeals is entitled to bail as a atter of ri'ht and to enDo& the bail
'ranted b& the Re'ional Trial +ourt, in Ma-ati, Metro Manila, pendin'
appeal fro the Dud'ent convictin' hi of Hoicide on t!o #$% counts
thou'h char'ed !ith MurderF and assuin' that bail is a atter of
discretion, the trial court had alread& eEercised sound discretion in 'rantin'
bail to accused,appellant, no! petitioner in this case, and respondent +ourt
of .ppeals is devoid of Durisdiction in cancellin' said bailbond.
The Solicitor )eneral stated the issues ore clearl&, thus5
19
I
6hether or not the trial court still have #sic% Durisdiction over the case !hen
it approved petitioner8s bail bond on "une 4, 122:.
II
+onsiderin' that the urder char'e a'ainst petitioner still stands pendin'
his appeal and stron' evidence of 'uilt actuall& eEists based on respondent
+ourt of .ppeals8 o!n preliinar& deterination and the lo!er court8s initial
findin' as !ell, is petitioner entitled to bail as a atter of ri'ht pendin'
revie! of his conviction for hoicideI
III
Ho! does petitioner8s prison record affect his alle'ed ri'ht to bailI
The Court's Ruling
First Issue5 Trial Court's Jurisdiction
3
To decide the issue of !hether the cancellation of bail bond b& the respondent +ourt
!as correct, !e dee it necessar& to deterine first !hether the trial court had
Durisdiction to 'rant bail under the circustances of this case.
Petitioner contends that the trial court !as correct in allo!in' hi >to post bail for his
provisional libert& on the sae da&, Ma& 31, 122: !hen the Dud'ent of conviction of
#sic% hoicide !as proul'ated and the accused,appellant #petitioner% anifested
his intention to appeal the Dud'ent of conviction. .t the tie, the lo!er court still had
Durisdiction over the case as to epo!er it to issue the order 'rantin' bail pendin'
appeal. .ppellant filed his notice of appeal onl& on "une 4, 122:, on !hich date his
appeal !as deeed perfected and the lo!er court lost Durisdiction over the case.
Hence, the 'rant of bail on Ma& 31, 122: cannot be validl& attac-ed on Durisdictional
'rounds.>
%0
Throu'h its counsel, the Solicitor )eneral, respondent People adits that petitioner
anifested his intention to appeal on Ma& 31, 122: and filed his !ritten notice of
appeal on "une 1, 122:. ;ut the Solicitor )eneral nevertheless contends that >. . . it
!as onl& on "une 4, 122:, or three #3% da&s after perfectin' his appeal that petitioner
posted his bail bond in the aount of P4:,:::.:: throu'h Plaridel Suret& and
.ssurance +opan&. +learl&, !hen the lo!er court approved the bail bond on the
sae da& "une 4, 122:%, it no lon'er had "urisdiction over the case.>
%1
The respondent +ourt found that >#o%n "une 1, 122:, accused Obosa filed a !ritten
notice of appeal, dated "une 4, 122:, thereb& perfectin' appeal fro the
decision . . .>
%%
6e revie!ed the pa'e
%3
cited b& respondent +ourt, and found that indeed, the
!ritten notice of appeal, althou'h dated "une 4, 122:, !as ade and actuall& served
upon the trial court on "une 1, 122:. Such bein' the case, did the trial court correctl&
approve the bail bond on "une 4,122:I To ans!er this, there is a need to revisit
Section 3, Rule 1$$ of the Rules of +ourt5
Sec. 3. How appeal taken. J #a% The appeal to the Re'ional Trial +ourt, or
to the +ourt of .ppeals in cases decided b& the Re'ional Trial +ourt in the
eEercise of its ori'inal Durisdiction, shall be ta-en b& filin' a notice of appeal
!ith the court !hich rendered the Dud'ent or order appealed fro, and b&
servin' a cop& thereof upon the adverse part&.
EEE EEE EEE
Since petitioner did file the !ritten notice of appeal on "une 1, 122:, petitioner8s
appeal !as, perforce, perfected, !ithout need of an& further or other act, and
conse?uentl& and ineluctabl&, the trial court lost Durisdiction over the case, both over
the record and over the subDect of the case.
%4
.s has been ruled5
%5
The ?uestion presented for our resolution is5 Did the +ourt of *irst Instance
that convicted respondent (acson have the po!er and authorit& to issue the
!rit of preliinar& inDunction, prohibitin' the transfer of said (acson fro the
provincial hospital of Occidental Ne'ros to the Insular Penitentiar& at
Muntin'lupa, RiBalI 6hile there is no eEpress provision on this point, it is
contrar& to the 'enerall& accepted principles of procedure for said court to
be invested !ith said po!er or authorit&. . necessar& re'ard for orderl&
procedure deands that once a case, !hether civil or criinal, has been
appealed fro a trial court to an appellate #sic% court and the appeal
therefro perfected, the court a quoloses Durisdiction over the case, both
over the record and over the subDect of the case. Thus in civil cases the rule
is that after the appeal has been perfected fro a Dud'ent of the +ourt of
*irst Instance, the trial court losses #sic% Durisdiction over the case, eEcept to
issue orders for the protection and preservation of the ri'hts of the parties
!hich do not involve an& atter liti'ated b& the appeal #Rule 41, Sec. 2%.
The Durisdiction of the court over the atters involved in the case is lost b&
the perfected appeal, save in those cases !hich the rules eEpressl& eEcept
therefro. #7phasis supplied%.
;ut it should be noted that the bail !as 'ranted on Ma& 31, 122: b& the trial
+ourt.
%6
The validit& and effectivit& of the subse?uent approval of the bail bond b& the
trial court on "une 4, 122: is therefore the atter at issue. 6e a'ree !ith respondent
+ourt and respondent People that, !hile bail !as 'ranted b& the trial court !hen it
had Durisdiction, the approval of the bail bond !as done !ithout authorit&, because b&
then, the appeal had alread& been perfected and the trial court had lost Durisdiction.
Needless to sa&, the situation !ould have been different had bail been 'ranted and
approval thereof 'iven before the notice of appeal !as filed.
.s the approval !as decreed b& the trial court in eEcess of Durisdiction, then the
bailbond !as never validl& approved. On this basis alone, re'ardless of the outcoe
of the other issues, it is indisputable that the instant petition should be disissed.
Second Issue5 Is Petitioner ntitled To !ail
"s " #atter o$ Right%
The second issue, !hile no lon'er critical to the disposition of this case, !ill
nevertheless be tac-led, in vie! of its iportance. The Solicitor )eneral ar'ues that
>#f%or !hile petitioner !as convicted of the lesser offense of hoicide, the fact that he
has appealed resultantl& thro!s the !hole case open for revie! and reverts hi bac-
to his ori'inal situation as a person char'ed !ith the capital offense of urder on t!o
#$% counts a'ainst !ho a stron' evidence of 'uilt eEists as initiall& found b& the trial
court durin' the bail proceedin's a quo.>
%7
Petitioner ans!ers b& sa&in' that >once the accused !ho is char'ed !ith a capital
offense is convicted not of the offense for !hich he is char'ed but for a lesser one
!hich is not capital or punished !ith reclusion perpetua, he is entitled to bail as a
4
atter of ri'ht because the fact that the evidence of his 'uilt of a capital offense is
not stron' is necessaril& to be inferred fro his conviction of the lesser offense.>
%&
On this point, respondent +ourt ratiocinated5
%9
In this case, althou'h the accused is char'ed !ith urder on t!o counts,
and evidence of 'uilt is stron', the lo!er court found hi 'uilt& of hoicide
also on t!o #$% counts. He has appealed. .n appeal b& the accused thro!s
the !hole case open for revie! and this includes the penalt&, the indenit&
and the daa'es a!arded b& the trial court !hich a& be increased
#=ueuel vs. +ourt of .ppeals, 13: Phil. 33%. The appellate court a& find
the accused 'uilt& of the ori'inal crie char'ed and ipose on hi the
proper penalt& therefor #(inatoc vs. People, <4 Phil. 0@/%. ;& virtue of the
appeal, the conviction for the lesser offense of hoicide is sta&ed in the
eantie. Hence, the accused is bac- to the ori'inal situation as he !as
before Dud'ent #C$ . Peo vs. ;ocar, 2< Phil. 32@%, that is, one char'ed !ith
capital offenses !here evidence of 'uilt is stron'. ;ail ust be denied.
To resolve this issue, !e refer to Section 13, .rticle III of the 12@< +onstitution !hich
provides5
Sec. 13. .ll persons, eEcept those char'ed !ith offenses punishable
b& reclusion perpetua !hen evidence of 'uilt is stron', shall, before
conviction, be bailable b& sufficient sureties, or be released on reco'niBance
as a& be provided b& la!. The ri'ht to bail shall not be ipaired even
!hen the privile'e of the !rit of ha&eas corpus is suspended. 7Ecessive bail
shall not be re?uired.
In the case of 'e la Camara (s. nage,
30
!e anal&Bed the purpose of bail and !h& it
should be denied to one char'e !ith a capital offense !hen evidence of 'uilt is
stron'5
. . . ;efore conviction, ever& person is bailable eEcept if char'ed !ith capital
offenses !hen the evidence of 'uilt is stron'. Such a ri'ht flo!s fro the
presuption of innocence in favor of ever& accused !ho should not be
subDected to the loss of freedo as thereafter he !ould be entitled to
ac?uittal, unless his 'uilt be proved be&ond reasonable doubt. Thereb& a
re'ie of libert& is honored in the observance and not in the breach. It is not
be&ond the real of probabilit&, ho!ever, that a person char'ed !ith a
crie, especiall& so !here his defense is !ea-, !ould Dust sipl& a-e
hiself scarce and thus frustrate the hearin' of his case. . bail is intended
as a 'uarantee that such an intent !ould be th!arted. It is, in the lan'ua'e
of +oole&, a >ode short of confineent !hich !ould, !ith reasonable
certaint&, insure the attendance of the accused> for the subse?uent trial. )or
is there anything unreasona&le in denying this right to one charged with a
capital o$$ense when e(idence o$ guilt is strong* as the likelihood is* rather
than await the outcome o$ the proceeding against him with a death
sentence* an e(er+present threat* temptation to $lee the ,urisdiction would &e
too great to &e resisted. #7phasis supplied%.
The afore?uoted rationale applies !ith e?ual force to an appellant !ho, thou'h
convicted of an offense not punishable b& death, reclusion perpetua or life
iprisonent, !as nevertheless ori'inall& char'ed !ith a capital offense. Such
appellant can hardl& be unindful of the fact that, in the ordinar& course of thin's,
there is a substantial li-elihood of his conviction #and the correspondin' penalt&%
bein' affired on appeal, or !orse, the not insi'nificant possibilit& and infinitel& ore
unpleasant prospect of instead bein' found 'uilt& of the capital offense ori'inall&
char'ed. In such an instance, the appellant cannot but be sorel& tepted to flee.
Our Rules of +ourt, follo!in' the andate of our fundaental la!, set the standard
to be observed in applications for bail. Section 3, Rule 114 of the 12@0 Rules on
+riinal procedure,
31
as aended, provides5
Sec. 3. !ail* a matter o$ rightF e-ception. .ll persons in custod& shall, before
final conviction, be entitled to bail as a atter of ri'ht, eEcept those char'ed
!ith a capital offense or an offense !hich, under the law at the time o$ its
commission and at the time o$ the application $or &ail, is punishable
b& reclusion perpetua, !hen evidence of 'uilt is stron'. #7phasis
supplied%.
In !orinaga (s. Tamin,
3%
!hich !as proul'ated in 1223, this +ourt laid do!n the
'uidelines for the 'rant of bail5
The 12@< +onstitution provides that all persons, eEcept those char'ed !ith
offenses punishable b& reclusion perpetua !hen evidence of 'uilt is stron'
shall, before conviction, be bailable b& sufficient sureties or be released on
reco'niBance as a& be provided b& la!. +orollaril&, the Rules of +ourt,
under Section 3, Rule 114 thereof, provides that all persons in custod& shall,
before final conviction, be entitled to bail as a atter of ri'ht, eEcept those
char'ed !ith a capital offense or an offense !hich, under the la! at the tie
of its coission and at the tie of the application for bail, is punishable
b& reclusion perpetua, !hen evidence of 'uilt is stron'.
.s no! revised in the 12@0 Rules of +riinal Procedure and provided in
Rule 114 thereof, the rules on availabilit& of bail to an accused a& be
restated as follo!s5
1. .dission to bail is a atter of ri'ht at an& sta'e of the
action !here the char'e is not for a capital offense or is
not punishable b& reclusion perpetuaF GSec. 3, Rule 114,
12@0 Rules on +ri. ProcedureH.
5
$. Re'ardless of the sta'e of the criinal prosecution, no
bail shall be allo!ed if the accused is char'ed !ith a
capital offense or of an offense punishable b& reclusion
perpetua and the evidence of 'uilt is stron'F GIdemH.
3. 7ven if a capital offense is char'ed and the evidence of
'uilt is stron', the accused a& still be aditted to bail in
the discretion of the court if there are stron' 'rounds to
apprehend that his continued confineent !ill endan'er
his life or result in peranent ipairent of health, GDe la
Raa vs. People8s +ourt, 43 O.). No. 1:, 41:< #124<%H
but onl& before Dud'ent in the re'ional trial courtF and
4. No bail shall be allo!ed after final Dud'ent, unless the
accused has applied for probation and has not
coenced to serve sentence, GSection $1, Rule 114,
12@0 Rules of +ourtH the penalt& and offense bein' !ithin
the purvie! of the probation la!.
Ho!ever, the above 'uidelines, alon' !ith Rule 114 itself, have since been odified
b& .dinistrative +ircular No. 1$,24, !hich !as issued b& this +ourt and !hich cae
into effect on October 1, 1224. Veril&, had herein petitioner ade application for bail
after the effectivit& of said circular, this case !ould have been readil& and proptl&
resolved a'ainst petitioner. *or, ?uite recentl&, in Ro&in Cari.o Padilla (s. Court o$
"ppeals* et al.,
33
!e held, a-in' reference to said adinistrative circular5
;ail is either a atter of ri'ht, or of discretion. It is a atter of ri'ht !hen the
offense char'ed is not punishable b& death, reclusion perpetua or life
iprisonent. On the other hand, upon conviction b& the Re'ional Trial
+ourt of an offense not punishable b& death, reclusion perpetua or life
iprisonent, bail becoes a atter of discretion. Siilarl&, i$ the court
imposed a penalty o$ imprisonment e-ceeding si- /01 years &ut not more
than twenty /231 years then &ail is a matter o$ discretion* e-cept when any
o$ the enumerated circumstances under paragraph 4 o$ Section 5* Rule 667
is present then &ail shall &e denied. ;utwhen the accused is charged with a
capital o$$ense* or an o$$ense punisha&le &y reclusion perpetua or li$e
imprisonment* and e(idence o$ guilt is strong* &ail shall &e denied* as it is
neither a matter o$ right nor a discretion. If the evidence, ho!ever, is not
stron' bail becoes a atter of ri'ht. #+itation oittedF ephasis supplied%.
.nd, as above adverted to, the circustances entioned in para'raph 3 of Section
0, Rule 114 of the 1224 Revised Rules on +riinal Procedure J the presence of an&
of !hich could preclude the 'rant of bail J are as follo!s5
#a% That the accused is a recidivist, ?uasi,recidivist, or
habitual delin?uent, or has coitted the crie
a''ravated b& the circustance of reiterationF
#b% That the accused is found to have previousl& escaped
fro le'al confineent, evaded sentence, or has violated
the conditions of his bail !ithout valid DustificationF
#c% That the accused coitted the offense !hile on
probation, parole, or under conditional pardonF
#d% That the circustances of the accused or his case
indicate the probabilit& of fli'ht if released on bailF or
#e% That there is undue ris- that durin' the pendenc& of
the appeal, the accused a& coit another crie.
It !ill be readil& noted that, pursuant to the fore'oin' aendents, not onl& does the
conviction of petitioner for t!o counts of hoicide dis?ualif& hi fro bein' aditted
to bail as a atter of ri'ht and subDect his bail application to the sound discretion of
the court, but ore si'nificantl&, the circustances enuerated in para'raphs a, b, d
and e above, !hich are present in petitioner8s situation, !ould have Dustified and
!arranted the denial of bail, eEcept that a retroactive application of the said circular
in the instant case is barred as it !ould obviousl& be unfavorable to petitioner.
;ut be that as it a&, the rules on bail at the tie of petitioner8s conviction #i.e., prior
to their aendent b& .d. +ircular 1$,24% do not favor petitioner8s cause either.
In 8uemuel (s. C"* et al.,
34
this +ourt held that the appeal in a criinal case opens
the !hole case for revie! and this includes the penalt&, !hich a& be increased.
Thus, on appeal, as the entire case is subitted for revie!, even factual ?uestions
a& be increased. Thus, on appeal, as the entire case is subitted for revie!, even
factual ?uestions a& once ore be !ei'hed and evaluated. That bein' the
situation, the possibilit& of conviction upon the ori'inal char'e is ever present.
(i-e!ise, if the prosecution had previousl& deonstrated that evidence of the
accused8s 'uilt is stron', as it had done so in this case, such deterination subsists
even on appeal, despite conviction for a lesser offense, since such deterination is
for the purpose of resolvin' !hether to 'rant or den& bail and does not have an&
bearin' on !hether petitioner !ill ultiatel& be ac?uitted or convicted of the char'e.
6e have previousl& held that, !hile the accused, after conviction, a& upon
application be bailed at the discretion of the court, that discretion J particularl& !ith
respect to eEtendin' the bail J should be eEercised not !ith laEit&, but !ith caution
and onl& for stron' reasons, !ith the end in vie! of upholdin' the aDest& of the la!
and the adinistration of Dustice.
35
6
.nd the 'rave caution that ust attend the eEercise of Dudicial discretion in 'rantin'
bail to a convicted accused is best illustrated and eEeplified in .dinistrative
+ircular No. 1$,24 aendin' Rule 114, Section 0 !hich no! specificall& provides
that, althou'h the 'rant of bail is discretionar& in non,capital offenses, nevertheless,
!hen iprisonent has been iposed on the convicted accused in eEcess of siE #/%
&ear and circustances eEist #inter alia, !here the accused is found to have
previousl& escaped fro le'al confineent or evaded sentence, or there is an undue
ris- that the accused a& coit another crie !hile his appeal is pendin'% that
point to a considerable li-elihood that the accused a& flee if released on bail, then
the accused ust be denied bail, or his bail previousl& 'ranted should be cancelled.
;ut the sae rationale obtained even under the old rules on bail #i.e., prior to their
aendent b& .d. +ircular 1$,24%. Senator Vicente ". *rancisco8s
36
elo?uent
eEplanation on !h& bail should be denied as a atter of !ise discretion after
Dud'ent of conviction reflects that thin-in', !hich reains valid up to no!5
The iportance attached to conviction is due to the underl&in' principle that
bail should be 'ranted onl& !here it is uncertain !hether the accused is
'uilt& or innocent, and therefore, !here that uncertaint& is reoved b&
conviction it !ould, 'enerall& spea-in', be absurd to adit to bail. .fter a
person has been tried and convicted the presuption of innocence !hich
a& be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon
the accused to sho! error in the conviction. *ro another point of vie! it
a& be properl& ar'ued that the probabilit& of ultiate punishent is so
enhanced b& the conviction that the accused is uch ore li-el& to attept
to escape if liberated on bail than before conviction. . . .
Third Issue5 Petitioner's Record
Petitioner clais that respondent +ourt of .ppeals erred in concludin' >that at the
tie the bail !as 'ranted and approved b& His Honor of the trial court, he has still to
serve sentence and reain in confineent up to October 1, 122/> and hence !as
not entitled to bail.
37
Petitioner, citin' (uis ;. Re&es,
3&
aintains that the ;ureau of
+orrections properl& released hi fro prison on "ul& 1@, 122:.
6e find it unnecessar& to address this issue in the resolution of the instant petition.
Havin' alread& deterined that the bail bond !as approved !ithout Durisdiction and
that the +ourt of .ppeals !as correct in issuin' the t!o ?uestioned Resolutions, !e
thus hold that, petitioner cannot be released fro confineent. The deterination of
!hether or not petitioner should still be iprisoned up to October 1, 122/, and onl&
thereafter a& possibl& be released on bail is no lon'er aterial for the disposition of
this case. Thus, !e shall lon'er burden ourselves !ith the resolution of this acadeic
issue.
PI9:;<
In su, !e rule that bail cannot be 'ranted as a atter of ri'ht even after an
accused, !ho is charged with a capital o$$ense, appeals his con(iction $or a non+
capital crime. +ourts ust eEercise utost caution in decidin' applications for bail
considerin' that the accused on appeal a& still be convicted of the ori'inal capital
offense char'ed and that thus the ris- attendant to Dupin' bail still subsists. In fact,
trial courts !ould be !ell advised to leave the atter of bail, after conviction for a
lesser crie than the capital offense ori'inall& char'ed, to the appellate court8s sound
discretion.
6e also hold that the trial court had failed to eEercise the de'ree of discretion and
caution re?uired under and andated b& our statutes and rules, for, aside fro bein'
too hast& in 'rantin' bail iediatel& after proul'ation of Dud'ent, and actin'
!ithout Durisdiction in approvin' the bailbond, it ineEplicabl& i'nored the undeniable
fact of petitioner8s previous escape fro le'al confineent as !ell as his prior
convictions.
9pon the other hand, the respondent +ourt should be coended for its vi'ilance,
discretion and steadfastness. In rulin' a'ainst bail, it even scoured the records and
found that treacher& attended the -illin' thereb& Dustif&in' its action. The trial court8s
literal interpretation of the la! on bail !as forcefull& debun-ed b& the appellate
courts8 eEcellent dis?uisition on the rationale of the applicable rules. Trul&, la! ust
be understood not b& >the letter that -illeth but b& the spirit that 'iveth life.> (a!
should not be read and interpreted in isolated acadeic abstraction nor even for the
sa-e of lo'ical s&etr& but al!a&s in conteEt of pulsatin' social realities and
specific environental facts. Trul&, >the real essence of Dustice does not eanate
fro ?uibblin's over patch!or- le'al technicalit&. It proceeds fro the spirit8s 'ut
consciousness of the d&naic role of la! as a bric- in the ultiate developent of
the social edifice.>
39
6H7R7*OR7, for lac- of erit, the instant petition is hereb& D7NI7D and the t!o
assailed Resolutions .**IRM7D.
SO ORD7R7D.
7

You might also like