His continued detention necessarily restrains his freedom of work and he cannot

His continued detention necessarily restrains his

This preview shows page 14 - 15 out of 31 pages.

His continued detention necessarily restrains his freedom of work, and he cannot carry out his normal military functions. There is no showing by petitioner that he was placed on "full duty status" and performing "regular duties" pending trial. On the premise of "no work no pay", petitioner cannot insist on his right to receive base pay or any other pay while under detention. However, while petitioner is not entitled to receive any base pay or any other pay during his detention, the law expressly permits him to receive his regular and other allowances , if otherwise entitled thereto, while under detention. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Habeas Corpus for lack of merit. No pronouncement to costs. SO ORDERED. 4. Standards for fixing bail VILLASENOR VS. ABANO, 21 SCRA 312 (1967) G.R. No. L-23599 September 29, 1967 REYNALDO C. VILLASEÑOR, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMO ABANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF MARINDUQUE, respondents. Maximo Abano for respondents. No appearance for petitioner. SANCHEZ, J.: The questions presented in this an original petition for certiorari , took root in Criminal Case 2299 (Court of First Instance of Marinduque) for the murder of Boac police sergeant Alfonso Madla, lodged by the Provincial Fiscal against petitioner. 1 Petitioner, defendant below, was, on motion, admitted to a P60,000.00-bail. The amount of the bond was, on verbal representation of petitioner's wife, reduced to P40,000.00. On May 29, 1964, petitioner posted a property bond, was set at provisional liberty. Before arraignment on the murder charge, however, respondent Provincial Fiscal amended the information. This time he accused petitioner with "Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Murder." On August 7, 1964, respondent judge sua sponte cancelled petitioner's bond, ordered his immediate arrest. On petitioner's motion. to reconsider, respondent judge, on September 9, 1964, after hearing, resolved to admit him to bail provided he puts up a cash bond of P60,000.00. On September 15, 1964, on petitioner's motion that the original bond previously given be reinstated, respondent judge resolved to fix "the bond anew in real property in the amount of P60,000.00, but to be posted only by residents of the province of Marinduque actually staying therein" with properties which "must be in the possession and ownership of said residents for five years." On October 1, 1964, petitioner came to this Court on certiorari , with a prayer for preliminary injunction. He seeks to set aside respondent judge's orders of August 7, September 9 and September 15, 1964; to reinstate the bail bond theretofore approved by respondent judge on May 29, 1964, and for other reliefs. He charges respondent judge having acted without any or in excess of his jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, and with violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Court in issuing the disputed orders.
Image of page 14
Image of page 15

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 31 pages?

  • Fall '14
  • Trial court, Joseph Estrada, ADDU CONSTI 2 COMPILATION, respondent jinggoy estrada, jun valerio

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture