70. Padilla V. Ca Digest_llovit.docx

70. Padilla v. CA, 260 SCRA 155 TITLE

ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA, accused-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellees.

GR NUMBER

G.R. No. 121917

DATE

July 31, 1996

PONENTE

FRANCISCO, J.

NATURE/ KEYWORDS/ DIVISION

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals/ Aspects of the Right to Bail / Third Division

FACTS

Appellant, Robin C. Padilla was charged with violation of P.D. No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Pending trial, appellant was released on bail. Thereafter, appellant was convicted and meted an indeterminate penalty of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal to 21 years of reclusion perpetua. He appealed to public respondent Court of Appeals, but judgment was rendered affirming his conviction. Respondent court cancelled his bailbond and ordered his arrest for confinement at the New Bilibid Prison. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Dissatisfied, appellant filed a petition for review on certiorari with an application for bail praying, among others, to be allowed to post bail. In his subsequent pleading, appellant moved for the separate resolution of his bail application.

ISSUE(S)

1. W/N the appellant is entitled to bail?

RULING(S)

1. No. 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 by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of discretion. Similarly, if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than twenty 20 years then bail is a matter of discretion except when any of the enumerated circumstances under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present then bail shall be denied. But when the accused is

charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied, as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion. If the evidence, however, is not strong bail becomes a matter of right. In this case, appellant was convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua. Applying the aforequoted rule, we find appellant not entitled to bail as his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt is strong. And contrary to appellant’s asseveration, a summary hearing for his bail application for the sole purpose of determining whether or not evidence is strong is unnecessary. Indeed, the extensive trial before the lower court and the appeal before respondent court are more than sufficient in accomplishing the purpose for which a summary hearing for bail application is designed. Note: Rule 114, Section 5. (a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstances of reiteration; (b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit another crime. CONCLUSION

ACCORDINGLY, the cancellation of appellant’s bailbond by public respondent court is AFFIRMED and the instant application for bail is DENIED for lack of merit.