Issue Whether Maguddatu et al are entitled to bail during the whole duration

Issue whether maguddatu et al are entitled to bail

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 32 pages.

apprehension and service of sentence of Aniceto Maguddatu and Laureana Maguddatu. Issue: Whether Maguddatu, et. al. are entitled to bail during the whole duration their case is on appeal. Ruling: No. Firstly, Maguddatu, et. al. violated the conditions of their bail. Maguddatu, et. al.'s non-appearance during the promulgation of the trial court's decision despite due notice and without justifiable reason, and their continued non-submission to the proper authorities as ordered by the Court of Appeals, constitutes violations of the conditions of their bail. Moreover, it appears that Maguddatu, et. al. failed to renew their expired bail bond, as shown by a Motion, dated 6 January 1987, filed by AFISCO Insurance Corporation, praying for the cancellation of petitioners' bail bond because of the latter's failure to renew the same upon its expiration. Lastly, Maguddatu, et. al. had no cause to expect that their application for bail would be granted as a matter of course precisely because it is a matter of discretion. In fact, the filing of a notice of appeal effectively deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion for bail pending appeal because appeal is perfected by the mere filing of such notice. It has been held that trial courts would be well advised to leave the matter of bail, after conviction for a lesser crime than the capital offense originally charged, to the appellate court's sound discretion. MANOLET O. LAVIDES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ROSALINA L. LUNA PISON,
Image of page 5
Facts: Petitioner Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 (an act providing for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination, providing penalties for its violation, and other purposes). His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the policeAt around 8:20 in the evening of April 3, 1997, the police knocked at the door of Room 308 of the Metropolitan Hotel where petitioner was staying. When petitioner opened the door, the police saw him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a t-shirt and underwear, whereupon they arrested him. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers, which were submitted at the inquest, an information for violation of Art. III, 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 was filed on April 7, 1997 against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City. petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion :Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged." the trial court issued an order resolving petitioners Omnibus Motion, as follows: The accused is entitled to bail in all the above-entitled case. He is hereby granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of P800,000.00. Petitioner on May 22, 1997, filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment. the trial court, in separate orders, denied petitioners motions to reduce bail bonds.
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 32 pages?

  • Fall '14
  • Law, Appellate court, respondent judge

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture