Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    126188-1996-Padilla v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    gem_mata
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the application for bail of Robin Cariño Padilla, who had been convicted of illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to 17 years and 4 months to 21 years of imprisonment. The Court affirmed that under the rules of criminal procedure, an accused convicted of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, as in this case, is no longer entitled to bail pending appeal. However, the Court granted Padilla's request to undergo an X-ray and MRI at a hospital, as the prison was not adequately equipped, but required that he return immediately to prison thereafter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    126188-1996-Padilla v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    gem_mata
    39 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the application for bail of Robin Cariño Padilla, who had been convicted of illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to 17 years and 4 months to 21 years of imprisonment. The Court affirmed that under the rules of criminal procedure, an accused convicted of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, as in this case, is no longer entitled to bail pending appeal. However, the Court granted Padilla's request to undergo an X-ray and MRI at a hospital, as the prison was not adequately equipped, but required that he return immediately to prison thereafter.

    Original Description:

    Right to Bail; Padilla vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the application for bail of Robin Cariño Padilla, who had been convicted of illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to 17 years and 4 months to 21 years of imprisonment. The Court affirmed that under the rules of criminal procedure, an accused convicted of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, as in this case, is no longer entitled to bail pending appeal. However, the Court granted Padilla's request to undergo an X-ray and MRI at a hospital, as the prison was not adequately equipped, but required that he return immediately to prison thereafter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    39 views4 pages

    126188-1996-Padilla v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    gem_mata
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the application for bail of Robin Cariño Padilla, who had been convicted of illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to 17 years and 4 months to 21 years of imprisonment. The Court affirmed that under the rules of criminal procedure, an accused convicted of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, as in this case, is no longer entitled to bail pending appeal. However, the Court granted Padilla's request to undergo an X-ray and MRI at a hospital, as the prison was not adequately equipped, but required that he return immediately to prison thereafter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 121917. July 31, 1996.]

    ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA , accused-appellant, vs . COURT OF APPEALS


    and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee.

    Raval & Lokin; Robert A. Padilla and Philip Jurado; R.A.V. Saguisag and Gina C. Garcia for
    petitioner.
    The Solicitor General for respondents.

    SYLLABUS

    1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL; WHEN MAY BE AVAILED OF. — Bail is a
    matter of right or 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 six (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
    b y 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.
    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN MAY ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 2-92 BE APPLIED. —
    Administrative Circular No. 2-92, applies in this case. The circular unequivocably provides
    that when an accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense which under the law
    at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail is punishable by
    reclusion perpetua and is out on bail and after trial is convicted by the trial court of the
    offense charged, his bond shall be cancelled and the accused shall be placed in
    con nement pending resolution of his appeal. Appellant's application must, perforce, fail
    as he is no longer entitled to bail.

    RESOLUTION

    FRANCISCO , J : p

    On appellant Robin C. Padilla's application for bail.


    In an information led before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, appellant was
    charged with violation of P.D No. 1866 for illegal possession of rearms punishable by
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
    reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. 1 Pending trial, appellant was release
    on bail. Thereafter, appellant was convicted as charged 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
    af rming his conviction. Respondent court cancelled his bailbond and ordered his arrest
    for con nement at the New Bilibid Prison. Appellant led a motion for reconsideration but
    was denied. Dissatis ed, appellant is now before us by way of a petition for review on
    certiorari with an application for bail praying, among others, to be allowed to post bail for
    his temporary liberty. In his subsequent pleading, 2 appellant moved for the separate
    resolution of his bail application.
    The threshold issue is whether or not appellant is entitled to bail.
    Bail is either a matter of right, or discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense
    charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. 3 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. 4 Similarly, if
    the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not more that
    twenty (20) years then bail is a matter of discretion, except when any of the enumerated
    circumstances 5 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
    b y reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be
    denied, 6 as it is neither a matter of right nor discretion. If the evidence, however, is not
    strong bail becomes a matter of right. 7
    In People v. Nitcha, 8 the Court, reiterating established jurisprudence, there said:
    ". . . if an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
    is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is
    neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of
    the court. In such a situation the court would not have only determined that the
    evidenced of guilt is strong — which would have been suf cient to deny bail even
    before conviction — it would have likewise ruled that the accused's guilt has been
    proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not then be granted to the accused
    during the pendency of his appeal from the judgment of conviction. Construing
    Section 3, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, this
    Court, in the en banc Resolution of 15 October 1991 in People v. Ricardo Cortez,
    ruled that:

    'Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an accused who is charged with a


    capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, shall no
    longer be entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he appeals the case to
    this Court since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt
    of the offense charged is strong.'" 9

    In this case, appellant was convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua. Applying
    the aforequoted rule, we nd 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 of 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 suf cient in accomplishing the
    purpose for which a summary hearing for bail application is designed.
    Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, moreover, is clear. Thus:
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
    "SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
    imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an
    offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of
    guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal
    prosecution."
    Administrative Circular No. 2-92, in addition, applies in this case. The circular
    unequivocably provides that when an accused is charged with a capital or an offense
    which under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for
    bail is punishable by reclusion perpetua and is out on bail and after trial is convicted by
    the trial court of the offense charged, his bond shall be cancelled and the accused shall
    be placed in con nement pending resolution of his appeal . Appellant's application
    must, perforce, fail as he is no longer entitled to bail.
    Be that as it may, we are not unwilling to accommodate his request for an X-ray and
    Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) at St. Luke's Hospital as follow-up examinations for
    his 1994 slipped-disc operation. It has been said that while justice is the rst virtue of the
    court, yet admittedly, humanity is the second. Hence, petitioner's request for the badly
    needed X-ray and MRI examinations for which the New Bilibid Prison Hospital is
    inadequately equipped, as certi ed to by its Chief Of cer, deserves attention. We recall
    that way back in 1946, we allowed in Dela Rama v. People's court , 1 0 a precedent on which
    appellant now anchors his application, a prisoner to be released on bail when his continued
    detention would be injurious to his health. This trend, however, has changed with the
    development of times. Besides, appellant's situation is not akin to Dela Rama's factual
    milieu. While appellant now shall be denied bail, nevertheless, we cannot be indifferent to
    his medical needs. And by granting appellant's request, the Court is merely performing its
    supervisory powers over detainees to safeguard, among others, their proper
    accommodation and health pursuant to Section 25 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as
    amended.
    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. Appellant's
    request for an X-ray and MRI examinations at St. Luke's Hospital is GRANTED which should
    be conducted at the rst opportune time to be arranged by the Director of the New Bilibid
    prison with the responsible of cers of the hospital, provided that appellant shall be at all
    times subject to the security conditions imposed by the prison's director. The
    responsibility for the enforcement of the subject request, as well as the security of the
    appellant, devolves upon the Director of the New Bilibid Prison. Upon termination of the
    medical examinations, appellant shall be recommitted to prison without delay. As much as
    possible, any unnecessary publicity should be avoided.
    SO ORDERED.
    Narvasa, C . J ., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ ., concur.

    Footnotes

    1. P.D. 1866, Section 1.

    2. Urgent Motion, Rollo, p. 261-270.


    3. Rule 114, Section 4.
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
    4. Rule 114, Section 5.
    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 con nement, 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 ight if
    released on bail; or
    (e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit
    another crime.
    6. Rule 114, Section 7.

    7. People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130, 145.

    8. 240 SCRA 283.

    9. Id., at p. 295.
    10. 77 Phil. 461.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like