Petitioner thereafter file an Urgent Motion for Bail but such motion is opposed

Petitioner thereafter file an urgent motion for bail

This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 6 pages.

Petitioner, thereafter, file an Urgent Motion for Bail but such motion is opposed by the prosecution for the reason that petitioner should be arraign first before he can avail of Bail. Later on Petitioner simultaneously filed a motion to quash. The bail hearing was reset several times due to various pleadings filed by petitioner and the prosecution. Due to this, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus for the reason that the prosecution have waived their right to present evidence in opposition to his petition for bail; the prosecution launched an endless barrage of obstructive and dilatory moves to prevent the conduct of the bail hearings; and, on the failure of the People to adduce strong evidence of his guilt. Should the petition for habeas corpus be granted? Answer: No. Petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting ones right to bail. It cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the court where the criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed. Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan. Respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with 3 counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces 7 counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest were issued against him. The DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. The RTC issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him. Private respondent filed a petition for bail; after hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to another branch presided by respondent judge. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail and this was granted by respondent judge. Did the respondent judge act with grave abuse of discretion as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee? Answer: No. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 6 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • criminal law, Appellate court, Judge Donato & Salas

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture