His continued detention necessarily restrains his

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.