Case Digest: Leviste vs CA GR No 189122

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Leviste vs CA 
GR No 189122                                                                 March 17, 2010

Facts:
Jose Antonio Leviste  was charged with the crime of murder but was convicted by the RTC for the lesser crime of homicide. He appealed the RTC's decision to the CA then he field an application for admission to bail pending appeal, due to his advanced age and health condition, and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part.

The CA denied his application on the ground that the discretion to extend bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. That bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility.

On this matter, Levisete questioned the ruling of the CA and averred that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in the denial of his application for bail considering that none of the conditions justifying denial of bail under the Sec. 5 (3) Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was present. That when the penalty imposed by the trial court is more than six years but not more than 20 years and the circumstances in the above-mentioned provision are absent, bail must be granted to an appellant pending appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for bail of Leviste.

Ruling:
No, under Sec 5 of Rule 114 bail is discretionary, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Under par. 3 of the same rule if the penalty impose is more than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other circumstances:
  1. that he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
  2. that he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without a valid justification;
  3. that he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
  4. that the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
  5. that there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. 
That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary pending appeal and it cannot be said that CA committed grave abuse of discretion. After conviction by the trial court, the presumption of innocence terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends, from then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more