the right of an accused to bail with the sole exception of those charged with

The right of an accused to bail with the sole

This preview shows page 19 - 20 out of 31 pages.

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
Image of page 19
Image of page 20

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 31 pages?

  • Spring '14

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture