Case Digest: Leviste vs. CA, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010

                  Rule 114: Bail  |    Criminal Procedure


Facts:

Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the crime of homicide in the murder case of Rafael de las Alas. He was sentenced to a prison term of six years and one day to twelve years and one day. Leviste appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals and requested bail pending appeal, citing his advanced age and health condition as well as claiming that he posed no flight risk.

However, the Court of Appeals denied his application for bail, stating that bail should only be granted during the appeal process for strong reasons and exercised with caution. The court found that Leviste had failed to prove that his health would be permanently impaired or his life endangered by continued confinement, as he could still seek medical attention within the prison facility. The court also made a preliminary evaluation of Leviste's case and determined that there were no substantial reasons to overturn the evidence of his guilt.

Leviste's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. He now challenges the denial of his bail application, arguing that none of the conditions justifying the denial of bail were present and that bail should be granted to an appellant pending appeal if the imposed penalty is more than six years but not more than 20 years, and the specified circumstances are absent.

Issue:

In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment for more than six years, does the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court?

Held:  NO. 

The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on the appellant applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years. The first scenario deals with the circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph (namely, recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habitual delinquency or commission of the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; previous escape from legal confinement, evasion of sentence or violation of the conditions of his bail without a valid justification; commission of the offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon; circumstances indicating the probability of flight if released on bail; undue risk of committing another crime during the pendency of the appeal; or other similar circumstances) not present. The second scenario contemplates the existence of at least one of the said circumstances.

Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. On the other hand, upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of discretion.

Similarly, if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years then bail is a matter of discretion, except when any of the enumerated circums.tances under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present then bail shall be denied.

In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be denied even if the bail-negating26 circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. In other words, the appellate court’s denial of bail pending appeal where none of the said circumstances exists does not, by and of itself, constitute abuse of discretion.

On the other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion, that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Conversely, if the appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion will thereby be committed.

Nonetheless, a finding that none of the said circumstances is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion approach.


Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Case Digest: Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986

  Political Law Review | The 1986 Provisional Constitution After the February 1986 EDSA Revolution ousted President Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency. Petitioners challenged the legitimacy of President Aquino’s government, arguing it was not established in accordance with the 1973 Constitution. On March 25, 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 , which: Abolished the 1973 Constitution. Promulgated a Provisional (Freedom) Constitution. Retained select provisions of the 1973 Constitution. Added new articles on executive powers, government reorganization, and existing laws. Called for a Constitutional Commission to draft a new charter. Whether the Aquino government was legally constituted under the 1973 Constitution. YES The Court dismissed all three petitions for lack of merit. Petitioners had no personality to sue and failed to state a valid cause of action. The Court ruled that the legitimacy of a government is a political question , not subje...
Read more