The right of an accused to bail with the sole

the right of an accused to bail with the
sole exception of those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
Cases, like in the present case, when an
accused is charged with Murder but was
convicted with Homicide, mean only one
thing, that the lower court found the
evidence for the crime charged not
strong, hence, the accusedÊs conviction
of a lesser offense. Therefore, the denial
of the same accusedÊs application for bail
pending appeal on the ground that the
evidence of his guilt for the crime
charged is strong, would unintentionally
be suggestive of the outcome of the
appealed decision of the lower court. The
discretion whether to grant the
application for bail or not is given to the
CA in cases such as the present one, on
the reason that the same appellate court
can review the factual findings of the
lower court. However, this will no longer
be the case if a Petition for Certiorari is
filed with this Court as it is not a trier of
facts. Hence, he existence of those
queries brought about by the majority
opinion casts confusion rather than an
enlightenment on the present case.
The set of circumstances succinctly
provided in Section 5, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court has been provided as a
guide for the exercise of the appellate
court’s discretion in granting or denying
the application for bail, pending the
appeal of an accused who has been
convicted of a crime where the penalty
imposed by the trial court is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years,
otherwise, if it is intended that the said
discretion be absolute, no such set of
circumstances would have been
necessarily included in the Rules. · The CA
should have applied the provisions of
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court,
wherein the appellate court is given the
discretion to grant bail to the petitioner
after considering the enumerated circum
stances, the penalty imposed by the trial
court having exceeded six years.
Although this Court has held that the
discretion to extend bail during the
course of the appeal should be exercised
with grave caution and for strong
reasons, considering that the accused has
been in fact convicted by the trial court,
the set of circumstances succinctly
provided in Section 5, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court should be considered. The
said set of circumstances has been
provided as a guide for the exercise of the
appellate court’s discretion in granting or
denying the application for bail, pending
the appeal of an accused who has been
convicted of a crime where the penalty
imposed by the trial court is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years.
Otherwise, if it is intended that the said
discretion be absolute, no such set of
circumstances would have been
necessarily included in the Rules. Thus, if
the present ruling of the CA is upheld,
anyone who has been charged with a
capital offense, or an offense punishable
by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment but convicted by the trial
court of a lesser offense, would no longer
be able to apply for bail pending one’s
appeal. And by that premise, the