G.R. No.

189122

March 17, 2010

reasons, considering that the accused has been in !act convicted by the trial court.$7 Th# Fac$% Charged ith the "urder o! Ra!ael de las 0las, petitioner 8ose 0ntonio 9eviste as convicted by the Regional .rial Court o! :a;ati City !or the lesser cri"e o! ho"icide and sentenced to su!!er an indeter"inate penalty o! si& years and one day o! prision "ayor as "ini"u" to $* years and one day o! reclusion te"poral as "a&i"u".$$ <e appealed his conviction to the Court o! 0ppeals. $* Pending appeal, he !iled an urgent application !or ad"ission to bail pending appeal, citing his advanced age and health condition, and clai"ing the absence o! any ris; or possibility o! !light on his part. .he Court o! 0ppeals denied petitioner+s application !or bail. $, It invo;ed the bedroc; principle in the "atter o! bail pending appeal, that the discretion to e&tend bail during the course o! appeal should be e&ercised ( ith grave caution and only !or strong reasons.( Citing ell=established %urisprudence, it ruled that bail is not a sic; pass !or an ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing "edical care outside the prison !acility. It !ound that petitioner > !ailed to sho that he su!!ers !ro" ail"ent o! such gravity that his continued con!ine"ent during trial ill per"anently i"pair his health or put his li!e in danger. & & & Notably, the physical condition o! ?petitioner@ does not prevent hi" !ro" see;ing "edical attention hile con!ined in prison, though he clearly pre!erred to be attended by his personal physician. $/ Aor purposes o! deter"ining hether petitioner+s application !or bail could be allo ed pending appeal, the Court o! 0ppeals also considered the !act o! petitioner+s conviction. It "ade a preli"inary evaluation o! petitioner+s case and "ade a pri"a !acie deter"ination that there as no reason substantial enough to overturn the evidence o! petitioner+s guilt. Petitioner+s "otion !or reconsideration as denied. $1

JOSE ANTONIO LEVISTE, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF A EALS a!" EO LE OF THE HILI INES, Respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: Bail, the security given by an accused ho is in the custody o! the la !or his release to guarantee his appearance be!ore any court as "ay be re#uired,$ is the ans er o! the cri"inal %ustice syste" to a ve&ing #uestion' hat is to be done ith the accused, hose guilt has not yet been proven, in the (dubious interval,( o!ten years long, bet een arrest and !inal ad%udication)* Bail acts as a reconciling "echanis" to acco""odate both the accused+s interest in pretrial liberty and society+s interest in assuring the accused+s presence at trial., -pon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, the accused ho has been sentenced to prison "ust typically begin serving ti"e i""ediately unless, on application, he is ad"itted to bail./ 0n accused not released on bail is incarcerated be!ore an appellate court con!ir"s that his conviction is legal and proper. 0n erroneously convicted accused ho is denied bail loses his liberty to pay a debt to society he has never o ed.1 Even i! the conviction is subse#uently a!!ir"ed, ho ever, the accused+s interest in bail pending appeal includes !reedo" pending %udicial revie , opportunity to e!!iciently prepare his case and avoidance o! potential hardships o! prison. 2 On the other hand, society has a co"pelling interest in protecting itsel! by s i!tly incarcerating an individual ho is !ound guilty beyond reasonable doubt o! a cri"e serious enough to arrant prison ti"e. 3 Other recogni4ed societal interests in the denial o! bail pending appeal include the prevention o! the accused+s !light !ro" court custody, the protection o! the co""unity !ro" potential danger and the avoidance o! delay in punish"ent.5 -nder hat circu"stances an accused "ay obtain bail pending appeal, then, is a delicate balance bet een the interests o! society and those o! the accused.6 Our rules authori4e the proper courts to e&ercise discretion in the grant o! bail pending appeal to those convicted by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent. In the e&ercise o! that discretion, the proper courts are to be guided by the !unda"ental principle that the allo ance o! bail pending appeal should be e&ercised not ith la&ity but ith grave caution and only !or strong

Petitioner no #uestions as grave abuse o! discretion the denial o! his application !or bail, considering that none o! the conditions %usti!ying denial o! bail under the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court as present. Petitioner+s theory is that, here the penalty i"posed by the trial court is "ore than si& years but not "ore than *7 years and the circu"stances "entioned in the third paragraph o! Section 1 are absent, bail "ust be granted to an appellant pending appeal.

Th# I%%&# .he #uestion presented to the Court is this' in an application !or bail pending appeal by an appellant sentenced by the trial court to a penalty o! i"prison"ent !or "ore than si& years, does the discretionary nature o! the grant o! bail pending appeal "ean that bail should auto"atically be granted absent any o! the circu"stances "entioned in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court) Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court provides' Sec. 1. Bail, hen discretionary. B -pon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or li!e i"prison"ent, ad"ission to bail is discretionary. .he application !or bail "ay be !iled and acted upon by the trial court despite the !iling o! a notice o! appeal, provided it has not trans"itted the original record to the appellate court. <o ever, i! the decision o! the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature o! the o!!ense !ro" non=bailable to bailable, the application !or bail can only be !iled ith and resolved by the appellate court. Should the court grant the application, the accused "ay be allo ed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency o! the appeal under the sa"e bail sub%ect to the consent o! the bonds"an. I' $h# (#!a)$* +,(o%#" -* $h# $r+a) co&r$ +% +,(r+%o!,#!$ #.c##"+!/ %+. 012 *#ar%, $h# acc&%#" %ha)) -# "#!+#" -a+), or h+% -a+) %ha)) -# ca!c#))#" &(o! a %ho3+!/ -* $h# (ro%#c&$+o!, 3+$h !o$+c# $o $h# acc&%#", o' $h# 'o))o3+!/ or o$h#r %+,+)ar c+rc&,%$a!c#%4 0a2 Tha$ h# +% a r#c+"+5+%$, 6&a%+7r#c+"+5+%$, or ha-+$&a) "#)+!6&#!$, or ha% co,,+$$#" $h# cr+,# a//ra5a$#" -* $h# c+rc&,%$a!c# o' r#+$#ra$+o!8 0-2 Tha$ h# ha% (r#5+o&%)* #%ca(#" 'ro, )#/a) co!'+!#,#!$, #5a"#" %#!$#!c#, or 5+o)a$#" $h# co!"+$+o!% o' h+% -a+) 3+$ho&$ a 5a)+" 9&%$+'+ca$+o!8 0c2 Tha$ h# co,,+$$#" $h# o''#!%# 3h+)# &!"#r (ro-a$+o!, (aro)#, or co!"+$+o!a) (ar"o!8 0"2 Tha$ $h# c+rc&,%$a!c#% o' h+% ca%# +!"+ca$# $h# (ro-a-+)+$* o' ')+/h$ +' r#)#a%#" o! -a+)8 or

0#2 Tha$ $h#r# +% &!"&# r+%: $ha$ h# ,a* co,,+$ a!o$h#r cr+,# "&r+!/ $h# (#!"#!c* o' $h# a((#a). .he appellate court "ay, "otu proprio or on "otion o! any party, revie the resolution o! the Regional .rial Court a!ter notice to the adverse party in either case. Ce"phasis suppliedD Petitioner clai"s that, in the absence o! any o! the circu"stances "entioned in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court, an application !or bail by an appellant sentenced by the Regional .rial Court to a penalty o! "ore than si& years+ i"prison"ent should auto"atically be granted. Petitioner+s stance is contrary to !unda"ental considerations o! procedural and substantive rules. ;a%+c roc#"&ra) Co!c#r!% For-+" Gra!$ o' #$+$+o!

Petitioner !iled this special civil action !or certiorari under Rule 21 o! the Rules o! Court to assail the denial by the Court o! 0ppeals o! his urgent application !or ad"ission to bail pending appeal. Ehile the said re"edy "ay be resorted to challenge an interlocutory order, such re"edy is proper only here the interlocutory order as rendered ithout or in e&cess o! %urisdiction or ith grave abuse o! discretion a"ounting to lac; or e&cess o! %urisdiction.$2 Other than the s eeping aver"ent that (?t@he Court o! 0ppeals co""itted grave abuse o! discretion in denying petitioner+s application !or bail pending appeal despite the !act that none o! the conditions to %usti!y the denial thereo! under Rule $$/, Section 1 ?is@ present, "uch less proven by the prosecution,($3 ho ever, petitioner actually !ailed to establish that the Court o! 0ppeals indeed acted ith grave abuse o! discretion. <e si"ply relies on his clai" that the Court o! 0ppeals should have granted bail in vie o! the absence o! any o! the circu"stances enu"erated in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court. Aurther"ore, petitioner asserts that the Court o! 0ppeals co""itted a grave error and pre%udged the appeal by denying his application !or bail on the ground that the evidence that he co""itted a capital o!!ense as strong. Ee disagree. It cannot be said that the Court o! 0ppeals issued the assailed resolution ithout or in e&cess o! its %urisdiction. One, pending appeal o! a conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or li!e i"prison"ent, ad"ission to bail is e&pressly declared to be "+%cr#$+o!ar*. . o, the discretion to allo or disallo bail pending

appeal in a case such as this here the decision o! the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature o! the o!!ense !ro" non=bailable to bailable is e&clusively lodged by the rules ith the appellate court. .hus, the Court o! 0ppeals had %urisdiction to hear and resolve petitioner+s urgent application !or ad"ission to bail pending appeal. Neither can it be correctly clai"ed that the Court o! 0ppeals co""itted grave abuse o! discretion hen it denied petitioner+s application !or bail pending appeal. Gra5# a-&%# o' "+%cr#$+o! +% !o$ %+,()* a! #rror +! 9&"/,#!$ but it is such a capricious and hi"sical e&ercise o! %udg"ent hich is tanta"ount to lac; o! %urisdiction.$5 Ordinary abuse o! discretion is insu!!icient. .he abuse o! discretion "ust be grave, that is, the po er is e&ercised in an arbitrary or despotic "anner by reason o! passion or personal hostility.$6 It "ust be so patent and gross as to a"ount to evasion o! positive duty or to a virtual re!usal to per!or" the duty en%oined by or to act at all in conte"plation o! the la . In other ords, !or a petition !or certiorari to prosper, there "ust be a clear sho ing o! caprice and arbitrariness in the e&ercise o! discretion. *7 Petitioner never alleged that, in denying his application !or bail pending appeal, the Court o! 0ppeals e&ercised its %udg"ent capriciously and hi"sically. No capriciousness or arbitrariness in the e&ercise o! discretion as ever i"puted to the appellate court. Nor could any such i"plication or i"putation be in!erred. 0s observed earlier, the Court o! 0ppeals e&ercised grave caution in the e&ercise o! its discretion. .he denial o! petitioner+s application !or bail pending appeal as not unreasonable but as the result o! a thorough assess"ent o! petitioner+s clai" o! ill health. By "a;ing a preli"inary appraisal o! the "erits o! the case !or the purpose o! granting bail, the court also deter"ined hether the appeal as !rivolous or not, or hether it raised a substantial #uestion. .he appellate court did not e&ercise its discretion in a careless "anner but !ollo ed doctrinal rulings o! this Court. 0t best, petitioner only points out the Court o! 0ppeal+s erroneous application and interpretation o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court. <o ever, the e&traordinary rit o! certiorari ill not be issued to cure errors in proceedings or erroneous conclusions o! la or !act. *$ In this connection, 9ee v. People** is apropos' > Certiorari "ay not be availed o! here it is not sho n that the respondent court lac;ed or e&ceeded its %urisdiction over the case, even i! its !indings are not correct. Its #uestioned acts ould at "ost constitute errors o! la and not abuse o! discretion correctible by certiorari. In other ords, certiorari ill issue only to correct errors o! %urisdiction and not to correct errors o! procedure or "ista;es in the court+s !indings and conclusions. 0n interlocutory order "ay be assailed by certiorari or

prohibition only hen it is sho n that the court acted ithout or in e&cess o! %urisdiction or ith grave abuse o! discretion. <o ever, this Court generally !ro ns upon this re"edial "easure as regards interlocutory orders. .o tolerate the practice o! allo ing interlocutory orders to be the sub%ect o! revie by certiorari ill not only delay the ad"inistration o! %ustice but ill also unduly burden the courts. *, Ce"phasis suppliedD <or"+!/ o' Th+r" ara/ra(h o' S#c$+o! =, R&)# 11> Co!$ra"+c$% #$+$+o!#r?% I!$#r(r#$a$+o! .he third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ applies to t o scenarios here the penalty i"posed on the appellant applying !or bail is i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& years. .he !irst scenario deals ith the circu"stances enu"erated in the said paragraph Cna"ely, recidivis", #uasi=recidivis", habitual delin#uency or co""ission o! the cri"e aggravated by the circu"stance o! reiterationF previous escape !ro" legal con!ine"ent, evasion o! sentence or violation o! the conditions o! his bail ithout a valid %usti!icationF co""ission o! the o!!ense hile under probation, parole or conditional pardonF circu"stances indicating the probability o! !light i! released on bailF undue ris; o! co""itting another cri"e during the pendency o! the appealF or other si"ilar circu"stancesD not present. .he second scenario conte"plates the e&istence o! at least one o! the said circu"stances. .he i"plications o! this distinction are discussed ith erudition and clarity in the co""entary o! retired Supre"e Court 8ustice Aloren4 D. Regalado, an authority in re"edial la ' -nder the present revised Rule $$/, the availability o! bail to an accused "ay be su""ari4ed in the !ollo ing rules' &&& &&& &&&

e. 0!ter conviction by the Regional .rial Court herein a penalty o! i"prison"ent e&ceeding 2 years but not "ore than *7 years is i"posed, and not one o! the circu"stances stated in Sec. 1 or any other si"ilar circu"stance is present and proved, -a+) +% a ,a$$#r o' "+%cr#$+o! CSec. 1DF !. 0!ter conviction by the Regional .rial Court i"posing a penalty o! i"prison"ent e&ceeding 2 years but not "ore than *7 years, and any o! the circu"stances stated in Sec. 1 or any other si"ilar circu"stance is present and proved, !o -a+) %ha)) -# /ra!$#" by said court CSec. 1DF & & &*/ Ce"phasis suppliedD

Retired Court o! 0ppeals 8ustice Oscar :. <errera, another authority in re"edial la , is o! the sa"e thin;ing' Bail is either a "atter o! right or o! discretion. It is a "atter o! right hen the o!!ense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent. On the other hand, upon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, bail beco"es a "atter o! discretion. Si"ilarly, +' $h# co&r$ +,(o%#" a (#!a)$* o' +,(r+%o!,#!$ #.c##"+!/ %+. 012 *#ar% $h#! -a+) +% a ,a$$#r o' "+%cr#$+o!, #.c#($ 3h#! a!* o' $h# #!&,#ra$#" c+rc&,%$a!c#% &!"#r (ara/ra(h @ o' S#c$+o! =, R&)# 11> +% (r#%#!$ $h#! -a+) %ha)) -# "#!+#" .*1 Ce"phasis suppliedD In the !irst situation, bail is a "atter o! sound %udicial discretion. .his "eans that, i! none o! the circu"stances "entioned in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ is present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. 0n application !or bail pending appeal "ay be denied even i! the bail=negating*2 circu"stances in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ are absent. In other ords, the appellate court+s denial o! bail pending appeal here none o! the said circu"stances e&ists does not, by and o! itsel!, constitute abuse o! discretion. On the other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court e&ercises a "ore stringent discretion, that is, to care!ully ascertain hether any o! the enu"erated circu"stances in !act e&ists. I! it so deter"ines, it has no other option e&cept to deny or revo;e bail pending appeal. Conversely, i! the appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse o! discretion ill thereby be co""itted. Given these t o distinct scenarios, there!ore, any application !or bail pending appeal should be vie ed !ro" the perspective o! t o stages' C$D the deter"ination o! discretion stage, here the appellate court "ust deter"ine hether any o! the circu"stances in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ is presentF this ill establish hether or not the appellate court ill e&ercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application !or bail pending appeal and C*D the e&ercise o! discretion stage here, assu"ing the appellant+s case !alls ithin the !irst scenario allo ing the e&ercise o! sound discretion, the appellate court "ay consider all relevant circu"stances, other than those "entioned in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/, including the de"ands o! e#uity and %usticeF*3 on the basis thereo!, it "ay either allo or disallo bail. On the other hand, i! the appellant+s case !alls ithin the second scenario, the appellate court+s stringent discretion re#uires that the e&ercise thereo! be pri"arily !ocused on the deter"ination o! the proo! o! the presence o! any o! the circu"stances that are pre%udicial to the allo ance o! bail. .his is

so because the e&istence o! any o! those circu"stances is by itsel! su!!icient to deny or revo;e bail. No!#$h#)#%%, a '+!"+!/ $ha$ !o!# o' $h# %a+" c+rc&,%$a!c#% +% (r#%#!$ 3+)) !o$ a&$o,a$+ca))* r#%&)$ +! $h# /ra!$ o' -a+). S&ch '+!"+!/ 3+)) %+,()* a&$hor+A# $h# co&r$ $o &%# $h# )#%% %$r+!/#!$ %o&!" "+%cr#$+o! a((roach. Petitioner disregards the !ine yet substantial distinction bet een the t o di!!erent situations that are governed by the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/. Instead, petitioner insists on a si"plistic treat"ent that unduly dilutes the i"port o! the said provision and triviali4es the established policy governing the grant o! bail pending appeal. In particular, a care!ul reading o! petitioner+s argu"ents reveals that it interprets the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ to cover a)) %+$&a$+o!% here the penalty i"posed by the trial court on the appellant is i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& years. Aor petitioner, in such a situation, the grant o! bail pending appeal is al ays sub%ect to li"ited discretion, that is, oner#%$r+c$#" $o $h# "#$#r,+!a$+o! o' 3h#$h#r a!* o' $h# '+5# -a+)7 !#/a$+!/ c+rc&,%$a!c#% #.+%$%. .he i"plication o! this position is that, i! any such circu"stance is present, then bail ill be denied. Other ise, bail ill be granted pending appeal. Petitioner+s theory there!ore reduces the appellate court into a "ere !act= !inding body hose authority is li"ited to deter"ining hether any o! the !ive circu"stances "entioned in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ e&ists. .his unduly constricts its (discretion( into "erely !illing out the chec;list o! circu"stances in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ in all instances here the penalty i"posed by the Regional .rial Court on the appellant is i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& years. In short, petitioner+s interpretation severely curbs the discretion o! the appellate court by re#uiring it to deter"ine a singular !actual issue B hether any o! the !ive bail=negating circu"stances is present. <o ever, %udicial discretion has been de!ined as (choice.( *5 Choice occurs here, bet een (t o alternatives or a"ong a possibly in!inite nu"ber Co! optionsD,( there is ("ore than one possible outco"e, ith the selection o! the outco"e le!t to the decision "a;er.( *6 On the other hand, the establish"ent o! a clearly de!ined rule o! action is the end o! discretion.,7.hus, by severely clipping the appellate court+s discretion and relegating that tribunal to a "ere !act=!inding body in applications !or bail pending appeal in all instances here the penalty i"posed by the trial court on the appellant is i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& years, petitioner+s theory e!!ectively renders nugatory the provision that ( &(o! co!5+c$+o! -* $h# R#/+o!a) Tr+a) Co&r$ o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or li!e i"prison"ent, a",+%%+o! $o -a+) +% "+%cr#$+o!ar*.(

.he %udicial discretion granted to the proper court Cthe Court o! 0ppeals in this caseD to rule on applications !or bail pending appeal "ust necessarily involve the e&ercise o! %udg"ent on the part o! the court. .he court "ust be allo ed reasonable latitude to e&press its o n vie o! the case, its appreciation o! the !acts and its understanding o! the applicable la on the "atter.,$ In vie o! the grave caution re#uired o! it, the court should consider hether or not, under all circu"stances, the accused ill be present to abide by his punish"ent i! his conviction is a!!ir"ed. ,* It should also give due regard to any other pertinent "atters beyond the record o! the particular case, such as the record, character and reputation o! the applicant,,, a"ong other things. :ore i"portantly, the discretion to deter"ine allo ance or disallo ance o! bail pending appeal necessarily includes, at the very least, an initial deter"ination that the appeal is not !rivolous but raises a substantial #uestion o! la or !act hich "ust be deter"ined by the appellate court.,/ In other ords, a threshold re#uire"ent !or the grant o! bail is a sho ing that the appeal is not pro !or"a and "erely intended !or delay but presents a !airly debatable issue.,1 .his "ust be soF other ise, the appellate courts ill be deluged ith !rivolous and ti"e= asting appeals "ade !or the purpose o! ta;ing advantage o! a lenient attitude on bail pending appeal. Even "ore signi!icantly, this co"ports ith the very strong presu"ption on appeal that the lo er court+s e&ercise o! discretionary po er as sound,,2 specially since the rules on cri"inal procedure re#uire that no %udg"ent shall be reversed or "odi!ied by the Court o! 0ppeals e&cept !or substantial error. ,3 :oreover, to li"it the bail=negating circu"stances to the !ive situations "entioned in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ is rong. By restricting the bail=negating circu"stances to those e&pressly "entioned, petitioner applies the e&pressio unius est e&clusio alterius ,5 rule in statutory construction. <o ever, the very language o! the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ contradicts the idea that the enu"eration o! the !ive situations therein as "eant to be e&clusive. .he provision categorically re!ers to (the !ollo ing or o$h#r %+,+)ar c+rc&,%$a!c#% .( <ence, under the rules, si"ilarly relevant situations other than those listed in the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ "ay be considered in the allo ance, denial or revocation o! bail pending appeal. Ainally, la s and rules should not be interpreted in such a ay that leads to unreasonable or senseless conse#uences. 0n absurd situation ill result !ro" adopting petitioner+s interpretation that, here the penalty i"posed by the trial court is i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& years, bail ought to be granted i! none o! the listed bail=negating circu"stances e&ists. 0llo ance o! bail pending appeal in cases here the penalty i"posed is "ore than si& years o! i"prison"ent ill be "ore lenient than in cases here the penalty i"posed does not e&ceed si& years. Ehile denial or revocation o! bail in cases here the penalty i"posed is "ore than si& years+ i"prison"ent "ust be "ade only i! any o! the !ive bail=negating conditions is present, bail pending appeal in cases here the penalty i"posed does not e&ceed si& years i"prison"ent "ay be denied even ithout those conditions.

Is it reasonable and in con!or"ity ith the dictates o! %ustice that bail pending appeal be "ore accessible to those convicted o! serious o!!enses, co"pared to those convicted o! less serious cri"es) #$+$+o!#r?% Th#or* B#5+a$#% 'ro, H+%$or* A!" E5o)&$+o! o' R&)# o! ;a+) #!"+!/ A((#a) Petitioner+s interpretation deviates !ro", even radically alters, the history and evolution o! the provisions on bail pending appeal. .he relevant original provisions on bail ere provided under Sections , to 2, Rule $$7 o! the $6/7 Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure' Sec. ,. O!!enses less than capital be!ore conviction by the Court o! Airst Instance. B 0!ter %udg"ent by a "unicipal %udge and be!ore conviction by the Court o! Airst Instance, the de!endant shall be ad"itted to bail as o! right. Sec. /. Non=capital o!!enses a!ter conviction by the Court o! Airst Instance. B 0!ter conviction by the Court o! Airst Instance, de!endant "ay, upon application, be bailed at the discretion o! the court. Sec. 1. Capital o!!ense de!ined. B 0 capital o!!ense, as the ter" is used in this rule, is an o!!ense hich, under the la e&isting at the ti"e o! its co""ission, and at the ti"e o! the application to be ad"itted to bail, "ay be punished by death. Sec. 2. Capital o!!ense not bailable. B No person in custody !or the co""ission o! a capital o!!ense shall be ad"itted to bail i! the evidence o! his guilt is strong. .he a!ore"entioned provisions ere reproduced as Sections , to 2, Rule $$/ o! the $62/ Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure and then o! the $651 Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure. .hey ere "odi!ied in $655 to read as !ollo s' Sec. ,. Bail, a "atter o! rightF e&ception. B 0ll persons in custody, shall -#'or# '+!a) co!5+c$+o! be entitled to bail as a "atter o! right, e&cept those charged ith a capital o!!ense or an o!!ense hich, under the la at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application !or bail, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, hen evidence o! guilt is strong. Sec. /. Capital o!!ense, de!ined. B 0 capital o!!ense, as the ter" is used in this Rules, is an o!!ense hich, under the la e&isting at

the ti"e o! its co""ission, and at the ti"e o! the application to be ad"itted to bail, "ay be punished by death. Ce"phasis suppliedD .he signi!icance o! the above changes as clari!ied in 0d"inistrative Circular No. *=6* dated 8anuary *7, $66* as !ollo s' .he basic governing principle on the right o! the accused to bail is laid do n in Section , o! Rule $$/ o! the $651 Rules on Cri"inal Procedure, as a"ended, hich provides' Sec. ,. Bail, a "atter o! rightF e&ception. B 0ll persons in custody, shall be!ore !inal conviction, be entitled to bail as a "atter o! right, e&cept those charged ith a capital o!!ense or an o!!ense hich, under the la at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application !or bail, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, hen evidence o! guilt is strong. Pursuant to the a!orecited provision, an accused ho is charged ith a capital o!!ense or an o!!ense punishable by reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be entitled to bail as a "atter o! right even i! he appeals the case to this Court since his conviction clearly i"ports that the evidence o! his guilt o! the o!!ense charged is strong. <ence, !or the guidelines o! the bench and bar ith respect to !uture as ell as pending cases be!ore the trial courts, this Court en banc lays do n the !ollo ing policies concerning the e!!ectivity o! the bail o! the accused, to it' $D Ehen an accused is charged ith an o!!ense hich under the la e&isting at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application !or bail is punishable by a penalty lo er than reclusion perpetua and is out on bail, and a!ter trial is convicted by the trial court o! the o!!ense charged or o! a lesser o!!ense than that charged in the co"plaint or in!or"ation, he "ay be allo ed to re"ain !ree on his original bail pending the resolution o! his appeal, unless the proper court directs other ise pursuant to Rule $$/, Sec. * CaD o! the Rules o! Court, as a"endedF *D Ehen an accused is charged ith a capital o!!ense or an o!!ense hich under the la at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application !or bail is punishable by reclusion perpetua and is out on bail, and a!ter trial is convicted by the trial court o! a lesser o!!ense than that charged in the co"plaint or in!or"ation, the sa"e rule set !orth in the preceding paragraph shall be appliedF

,D Ehen an accused is charged ith a capital o!!ense or an o!!ense hich under the la at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application !or bail is punishable by reclusion perpetua and is out on bail and a!ter trial is convicted by the trial court o! the o!!ense charged, his bond shall be cancelled and the accused shall be placed in con!ine"ent pending resolution o! his appeal. 0s to cri"inal cases covered under the third rule abovecited, hich are no pending appeal be!ore his Court here the accused is still on provisional liberty, the !ollo ing rules are laid do n' $D .his Court shall order the bonds"an to surrender the accused ithin ten C$7D days !ro" notice to the court o! origin. .he bonds"an thereupon, shall in!or" this Court o! the !act o! surrender, a!ter hich, the cancellation o! the bond shall be ordered by this CourtF *D .he R.C shall order the trans"ittal o! the accused to the National Bureau o! Prisons thru the Philippine National Police as the accused shall re"ain under con!ine"ent pending resolution o! his appealF ,D I! the accused=appellant is not surrendered ithin the a!oresaid period o! ten C$7D days, his bond shall be !or!eited and an order o! arrest shall be issued by this Court. .he appeal ta;en by the accused shall also be dis"issed under Section 5, Rule $*/ o! the Revised Rules o! Court as he shall be dee"ed to have %u"ped his bail. Ce"phasis suppliedD 0"end"ents ere !urther introduced in 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/ dated 0ugust $2, $66/ hich brought about i"portant changes in the said rules as !ollo s' SEC.ION /. Bail, a "atter o! right. B 0ll persons in custody shall' CaD be!ore or a!ter conviction by the :etropolitan .rial Court, :unicipal .rial Court, :unicipal .rial Court in Cities and :unicipal Circuit .rial Court, and CbD be!ore conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, be ad"itted to bail as a "atter o! right, ith su!!icient sureties, or be released on recogni4ance as prescribed by la o! this Rule. C,aD SEC.ION 1. Bail, hen discretionary. B -pon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, the court, on application, "ay ad"it the accused to bail.

.he court, in its discretion, "ay allo the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the sa"e bail bond during the period o! appeal sub%ect to the consent o! the bonds"an. I! the court i"posed a penalty o! i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& C2D years but not "ore than t enty C*7D years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a sho ing by the prosecution, ith notice to the accused, o! the !ollo ing or other si"ilar circu"stances' CaD .hat the accused is a recidivist, #uasi=recidivist, or habitual delin#uent, or has co""itted the cri"e aggravated by the circu"stance o! reiterationF CbD .hat the accused is !ound to have previously escaped !ro" legal con!ine"ent, evaded sentence or has violated the conditions o! his bail ithout valid %usti!icationF CcD .hat the accused co""itted the o!!ense parole, under conditional pardonF hile on probation,

.he develop"ent over ti"e o! these rules reveals an orientation to ards a "ore restrictive approach to bail pending appeal. It indicates a !aith!ul adherence to the bedroc; principle, that is, bail pending appeal should be allo ed not ith leniency but ith grave caution and only !or strong reasons. .he earliest rules on the "atter "ade all grants o! bail a!ter conviction !or a non=capital o!!ense by the Court o! Airst Instance Cpredecessor o! the Regional .rial CourtD discretionary. .he $655 a"end"ents "ade applications !or bail pending appeal !avorable to the appellant=applicant. Bail be!ore !inal conviction in trial courts !or non=capital o!!enses or o!!enses not punishable by reclusion perpetua as a "atter o! right, "eaning, ad"ission to bail as a "atter o! right at any stage o! the action here the charge as not !or a capital o!!ense or as not punished by reclusion perpetua.,6 .he a"end"ents introduced by 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/ "ade bail pending appeal Co! a conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"entD discretionary. .hus, 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/ laid do n "ore stringent rules on the "atter o! post=conviction grant o! bail. 0.:. No. 77=1=7,=SC "odi!ied 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/ by clearly identi!ying hich court has authority to act on applications !or bail pending appeal under certain conditions and in particular situations. :ore i"portantly, it reiterated the (tough on bail pending appeal( con!iguration o! 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/. In particular, it a"ended Section , o! the $655 Rules on Cri"inal Procedure hich entitled the accused to bail as a "atter o! right be!ore !inal conviction./7 -nder the present rule, bail is a "atter o! discretion upon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent. Indeed, pursuant to the (tough on bail pending appeal( policy, the presence o! bail=negating conditions "andates the denial or revocation o! bail pending appeal such that those circu"stances are dee"ed to be as grave as conviction by the trial court !or an o!!ense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent here bail is prohibited. No , hat is "ore in consonance ith a stringent standards approach to bail pending appeal) Ehat is "ore in con!or"ity ith an e& abundante cautela" vie o! bail pending appeal) Is it a rule hich !avors the auto"atic grant o! bail in the absence o! any o! the circu"stances under the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/) Or is it a rule that authori4es the denial o! bail a!ter due consideration o! all relevant circu"stances, even i! none o! the circu"stances under the third paragraph o! Section 1, Rule $$/ is present)

CdD .hat the circu"stances o! the accused or his case indicate the probability o! !light i! released on bailF or CeD .hat there is undue ris; that during the pendency o! the appeal, the accused "ay co""it another cri"e. .he appellate court "ay revie the resolution o! the Regional .rial Court, on "otion and ith notice to the adverse party. CnD SEC.ION 2. Capital o!!ense, de!ined. B 0 capital o!!ense, as the ter" is used in these Rules, is an o!!ense hich, under the la e&isting at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application to be ad"itted to bail, "aybe punished ith death. C/D SEC.ION 3. Capital o!!ense or an o!!ense punishable by reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, not bailable. B No person charged ith a capital o!!ense, or an o!!ense punishable by reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, hen evidence o! guilt is strong, shall be ad"itted to bail regardless o! the stage o! the cri"inal prosecution. Ce"phasis suppliedD .he above a"end"ents o! 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/ to Rule $$/ ere therea!ter a"ended by 0.:. No. 77=1=7,=SC to read as they do no .

.he present inclination o! the rules on cri"inal procedure to !ro n on bail pending appeal parallels the approach adopted in the -nited States here our original constitutional and procedural provisions on bail e"anated./$ Ehile this is o! course not to be !ollo ed blindly, it nonetheless sho s that our treat"ent o! bail pending appeal is no di!!erent !ro" that in other de"ocratic societies. In our %urisdiction, the trend to ards a strict attitude to ards the allo ance o! bail pending appeal is anchored on the principle that %udicial discretion B particularly ith respect to e&tending bail B should be e&ercised not ith la&ity but ith caution and only !or strong reasons. /* In !act, it has even been pointed out that (grave caution that "ust attend the e&ercise o! %udicial discretion in granting bail to a convicted accused is best illustrated and e&e"pli!ied in 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/ a"ending Rule $$/, Section 1.(/, Aurther"ore, this Court has been guided by the !ollo ing' .he i"portance attached to conviction is due to the underlying principle that bail should be granted only here it is uncertain hether the accused is guilty or innocent, and there!ore, here that uncertainty is re"oved by conviction it ould, generally spea;ing, be absurd to ad"it to bail. 0!ter a person has been tried and convicted the presu"ption o! innocence hich "ay be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to sho error in the conviction. Aro" another point o! vie it "ay be properly argued that the probability o! ulti"ate punish"ent is so enhanced by the conviction that the accused is "uch "ore li;ely to atte"pt to escape i! liberated on bail than be!ore conviction. // Ce"phasis suppliedD 0s a "atter o! !act, endorsing the reasoning #uoted above and relying thereon, the Court declared in Hap v. Court o! 0ppeals /1 Cpro"ulgated in *77$ hen the present rules ere already e!!ectiveD, that denial o! bail pending appeal is (a "atter o! ise discretion.( 0 Ainal Eord Section $,, 0rticle II o! the Constitution provides' SEC. $,. 0ll persons, e&cept those charged ith o!!enses punishable by reclusion perpetua hen evidence o! guilt is strong, shall, be!ore conviction, be bailable by su!!icient sureties, or be released on recogni4ance as "ay be provided by la . & & & Ce"phasis suppliedD1avvphi1

0!ter conviction by the trial court, the presu"ption o! innocence ter"inates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends./2 Aro" then on, the grant o! bail is sub%ect to %udicial discretion. 0t the ris; o! being repetitious, such discretion "ust be e&ercised ith grave caution and only !or strong reasons. Considering that the accused as in !act convicted by the trial court, allo ance o! bail pending appeal should be guided by a stringent= standards approach. .his %udicial disposition !inds strong support in the history and evolution o! the rules on bail and the language o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court. It is li;e ise consistent ith the trial court+s initial deter"ination that the accused should be in prison. Aurther"ore, letting the accused out on bail despite his conviction "ay destroy the deterrent e!!ect o! our cri"inal la s. .his is especially ger"ane to bail pending appeal because long delays o!ten separate sentencing in the trial court and appellate revie . In addition, at the post=conviction stage, the accused !aces a certain prison sentence and thus "ay be "ore li;ely to !lee regardless o! bail bonds or other release conditions. Ainally, per"itting bail too !reely in spite o! conviction invites !rivolous and ti"e= asting appeals hich ill "a;e a "oc;ery o! our cri"inal %ustice syste" and court processes. <HEREFORE, the petition is hereby BISMISSEB. .he Court o! 0ppeals is hereby directed to resolve and decide, on the "erits, the appeal o! petitioner 8ose 0ntonio 9eviste doc;eted as C0=G.R. CR No. ,*$16, ith dispatch. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. DISSEN.ING OPINION ERALTA, J.: .he denial o! an application !or bail pending appeal on a case here the accused as charged ith :urder but as convicted ith <o"icide seriously poses so"e i"portant #uestions. By denying the application for bail pending appeal of an accused who was charged with the crime of Murder but was convicted of the crime of Homicide, is this Court, in effect, saying that the evidence of guilt for the crime of Murder is strong despite the lower court's finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, a bailable offense?

By denying the application for bail pending appeal on the ground that the evidence of guilt for the crime of Murder is strong, is this court, in a way, unknowingly preempting the udgment of the Court of !ppeals as to the main case? "n the event that the Court of !ppeals sustains the conviction of the accused of the crime of Homicide, a bailable offense and the accused decides to file a #etition for Certiorari before this Court, will the denial of the application for bail of the accused still be effective? Eith due respect to the present ponencia, an a!!ir"ative response to the above #uestions ould bring about so"e absurdities. Section $,, 0rticle III o! the $653 Philippine Constitution provides the !ollo ing' Sec. $,. 099 PERSONS, EICEP. .<OSE C<0RGED EI.< OAAENSES P-NIS<0B9E BH $%C&'(")* #%$#%+'! E<EN EJIDENCE OA G-I9. IS S.RONG, S<099, BEAORE CONJIC.ION, BE B0I90B9E BH S-AAICIEN. S-RE.IES, OR BE RE9E0SED ON RECOGNIK0NCE 0S :0H BE PROJIDED BH 90E. .<E RIG<. .O B0I9 S<099 NO. BE I:P0IRED EJEN E<EN .<E PRIJI9EGE OA .<E ERI. OA H!B%!( C)$#'( IS S-SPENDED. EICESSIJE B0I9 S<099 NO. BE REL-IRED. .he Philippine Constitution itsel! e"phasi4es the right o! an accused to bail ith the sole e&ception o! those charged ith o!!enses punishable by reclusion perpetua hen evidence o! guilt is strong. Cases, li;e in the present case, hen an accused is charged ith :urder but as convicted ith <o"icide, "ean only one thing, that the lo er court !ound the evidence !or the cri"e charged not strong, hence, the accusedMs conviction o! a lesser o!!ense. .here!ore, the denial o! the sa"e accusedMs application !or bail pending appeal on the ground that the evidence o! his guilt !or the cri"e charged is strong, ould unintentionally be suggestive o! the outco"e o! the appealed decision o! the lo er court. .he discretion hether to grant the application !or bail or not is given to the C0 in cases such as the present one, on the reason that the sa"e appellate court can revie the !actual !indings o! the lo er court. <o ever, this ill no longer be the case i! a Petition !or Certiorari is !iled ith this Court as it is not a trier o! !acts. <ence, the e&istence o! those #ueries brought about by the "a%ority opinion casts con!usion rather than an enlighten"ent on the present case. .he !ollo ing discussion, in "y opinion, should shed light on the "atter' Be!ore this Court is a Petition !or Certiorari under Rule 21 o! the $663 Rules o! Civil Procedure hich see;s to nulli!y and set aside the

Resolutions$ dated 0pril 5, *776 and 8uly $/, *776 o! the Court o! 0ppeals CC0D. .he antecedent !acts are the !ollo ing' 0rising !ro" a shooting incident that happened on 8anuary $*, *773 at petitioner 8ose 0ntonio 9eviste+s o!!ice here Ra!ael de las 0las died o! gunshot ounds, petitioner as charged ith "urder under the 0"ended In!or"ation dated :arch $1, *773 in Cri"inal Case No. 73=$36 o! the Regional .rial Court CR.CD o! :a;ati City, Branch $17. Petitioner, on Aebruary *,, *773, !iled an -rgent 0pplication !or 0d"ission to Bail %, !bundanti Cautela* on the ground that the evidence o! the prosecution as not strong- .he trial court, in its Order, dated :ay *$, *773, granted petitionerMs application !or bail. Subse#uently, trial ensued and, on 8anuary $/, *776, the trial court rendered its Decision/ !inding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt o! the cri"e o! ho"icide, the dispositive portion o! hich reads' E<EREAORE, PRE:ISES CONSIDERED, accused 8ose 0ntonio 9eviste y Casals is hereby !ound guilty beyond reasonable doubt o! the cri"e o! ho"icide and is sentenced to su!!er the indeter"inate penalty o! si& C2D years and one C$D day o! prision mayor as "ini"u", to t elve C$*D years and one C$D day o! reclusion te"poral as "a&i"u". 0ccused is !urther ordered to pay the heirs o! the victi", Ra!ael de las 0las, the a"ount o! Php17,777.77 as death inde"nity and Php17,777.77 as "oral da"ages. 0ccused 8ose 0ntonio 9eviste y Casals shall be credited in the service o! his sentence consisting o! deprivation o! liberty, ith the !ull ti"e during hich he had undergone preventive i"prison"ent at the :a;ati City 8ail !ro" Aebruary 3, *773 up to :ay **, *773 up provided that he agreed voluntarily in riting to abide by the sa"e disciplinary rules i"posed upon convicted prisoners. SO ORDERED. Conse#uently, in its Order1 dated 8anuary $/, *776, the trial court canceled petitionerMs bail bond, ruling that' 0ccused 8ose 0ntonio 9eviste y Casals as charged ith the cri"e o! :urder, a capital o!!ense or an o!!ense hich under the la at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application !or bail is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. .he accused is presently out on bail. 0!ter trial, the accused as ho ever convicted o! <o"icide, a lesser o!!ense than

that charged in the In!or"ation. 0ccused as accordingly sentenced to su!!er the indeter"inate penalty o! si& C2D years and one C$D day o! prision mayor as "ini"u", to t elve C$*D years and one C$D day o! reclusion temporal as "a&i"u". Sec. 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules on Cri"inal Procedure hich is dee"ed to have "odi!ied SC 0d"inistrative Circular No. *=6* dated 8anuary *7, $66*, provides' Bail, hen discretionary. = -pon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or li!e i"prison"ent, ad"ission to bail is discretionary. .he application !or bail "ay be !iled and acted upon by the trial court despite the !iling o! a notice o! appeal, provided it has not trans"itted the original record to the appellate court. <o ever, i! the decision o! the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature o! the o!!ense !ro" non=bailable to bailable, the application !or bail can only be !iled ith and resolved by the appellate court. In Obosa v. Court o! 0ppeals, G.R. No. $$/,17, 8anuary $2, $663, *22 SCR0 *5$, 35 SC0D $3, the Supre"e Court, spea;ing thru the .hird Division, stated' & & & that bail cannot be granted as a "atter o! right even a!ter an accused, ho is charged ith a capital o!!ense, appeals his conviction !or a non= capital cri"e. Courts "ust e&ercise ut"ost caution in deciding applications !or bail considering that the accused on appeal "ay still be convicted o! the original capital o!!ense charged and that the ris; attendant to %u"ping bail still subsists. In !act, trial courts ould be ell advised to leave the "atter o! bail, a!ter conviction !or a lesser cri"e than the capital o!!ense originally charged, to the appellate courtMs sound discretion. In vie o! the a!orecited rules and prevailing %urisprudence on the "atter, the bailbond posted by the accused !or his provisional liberty is dee"ed cancelled. 0ccused being considered a national prisoner is ordered co""itted to the :a;ati City 8ail, :a;ati City, pending his trans!er to the Ne Bilibid Prison at :untinlupa City. SO ORDERED. Petitioner !iled a Notice o! 0ppeal2 dated 8anuary $/, *776 and on 8anuary $1, *776, !iled ith the C0 an -rgent 0pplication !or 0d"ission to Bail Pending 0ppeal and an -rgent E& Parte :otion !or Special Ra!!le and to Resolve the 0ttached 0pplication !or 0d"ission to Bail. .he C0, in its Resolution dated 0pril 5, *776, denied petitionerMs application !or bail pending appeal, the disposition reading'

IN JIEE OA .<E AOREGOING RE0SONS, (the -rgent 0pplication !or 0d"ission to Bail Pending 0ppeal( is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. .he C0 also denied petitionerMs :otion !or Reconsideration dated 0pril $/, *776 in its Resolution3 dated 8uly $/, *776. <ence, the present petition. Petitioner states the !ollo ing argu"ents' .<E CO-R. OA 0PPE09S CO::I..ED GR0JE 0B-SE OA DISCRE.ION IN DENHING PE.I.IONERMS 0PP9IC0.ION AOR B0I9 PENDING 0PPE09 DESPI.E .<E A0C. .<0. NONE OA .<E CONDI.IONS .O 8-S.IAH .<E DENI09 .<EREOA -NDER R-9E $$/, SEC.ION 1 0RE PRESEN., :-C< 9ESS PROJEN BH .<E PROSEC-.ION. .<E CO-R. OA 0PPE09S GR0JE9H ERRED IN IGNORING .<E A0C. .<0. PE.I.IONER E0S CONJIC.ED OA <O:ICIDE, 0 B0I90B9E OAAENSE, 0ND .<0. 0S .EICE S<OEN IN .<E PROCEEDINGS BE9OE, .<E EJIDENCE .<0. PE.I.IONER CO::I..ED .<E CRI:E OA :-RDER IS NO. S.RONG. .<E CO-R. OA 0PPE09S -N8-S.9H PRE8-DGED PE.I.IONERMS 0PPE09 BH CONC9-DING .<0. .<E EJIDENCE OA G-I9. AOR :-RDER IS S.RONG, DESPI.E .<E AINDINGS OA .<E .RI09 CO-R. .O .<E CON.R0RH. .<E CO-R. OA 0PPE09S S<OEED -N8-S. BI0S IN 099OEING PROSEC-.OR JE90SCO .O P0R.ICIP0.E IN .<E 0PPE990.E PROCEEDINGS. 5 0ccording to petitioner, the C0 should have granted bail in vie o! the absence o! any o! the circu"stances enu"erated under paragraphs CaD to CeD, Section 1, Rule $$/. <e adds that he is neither a recidivist, a #uasi= recidivist or habitual delin#uent, nor a !light ris;F and there is no undue ris; that he ould co""it another cri"e during the pendency o! his appeal. Petitioner !urther argues that the C0 co""itted a grave error and pre%udged the appeal by denying his application !or bail on the ground that the evidence that he co""itted a capital o!!ense as strong. <e points out that the records sho that the trial court already granted hi" bail, since it !ound that the prosecution had !ailed to de"onstrate that the evidence o! his guilt !or the cri"e o! "urder as strongF and this as !urther con!ir"ed hen the trial court convicted hi" o! the cri"e o! ho"icide instead o! "urder. <ence, petitioner insists that the trial courtMs deter"ination that he is not guilty o! a capital o!!ense should subsist even on appeal.

0nent the third issue, petitioner clai"s that the C0 allo ed Prosecutor E""anuel Jelasco to delay his application !or bail by !iling "ere "ani!estations re#uesting the C0 to provide hi" ith copies o! petitionerMs "otions and ritten sub"issions. In its Co""ent dated Nove"ber *7, *776, the O!!ice o! the Solicitor General COSGD contends that the C0 co""itted no grave abuse o! discretion in denying petitionerMs application !or bail pending appeal. 0lthough the grant o! bail is discretionary in non=capital o!!enses, i!, as in this case, i"prison"ent has been i"posed on the petitioner in e&cess o! si& C2D years and circu"stances point to a considerable li;elihood that he "ay !lee i! released on bail, then he "ust be denied bail, or his bail previously granted should be canceled. .he OSG also reiterates the ruling in )bosa vCourt of !ppeals,6 hich as relied upon by the C0 in denying the application !or bail, stating that a!ter an accused has been tried and convicted, the presu"ption o! innocence, hich "ay be relied upon i! prior application is rebutted, the burden is upon the accused to sho error in the conviction. 0s to the clai" o! petitioner that the C0 gravely abused its discretion in allo ing Prosecutor Jelasco to participate in the appellate proceedings, the OSG dis"issed the said argu"ent as ithout "erit. In his :ani!estation and :otion dated Dece"ber 6, *776, petitioner contends that the OSGMs argu"ents in its Co""ent are a "ere rehash o! the baseless %usti!ications and argu"ents "ade by the C0 in denying his application !or bail, argu"ents hich have already been tac;led and re!uted by hi" in the present petition. Petitioner, in a :ani!estation dated Nove"ber *1, *776, noti!ied this Court that he had !iled a Jery -rgent :otion !or a :edical Pass be!ore the C0, as he had to undergo "edical treat"ent at the soonest possible ti"e. In his Dece"ber *$, *776 Reply ?to Respondent People o! the PhilippinesM Co""ent dated *7 Nove"ber *776@, petitioner reiterated the argu"ents he raised in his petition. In a letter dated Nove"ber *1, *776, hich as received by the O!!ice o! the Chie! 8ustice on Dece"ber 3, *776, :rs. .eresita C. de las 0las C i!eD, :s. Dinna de las 0las=Sanche4 CdaughterD, and :s. Na4areth <. de las 0las CdaughterD e&pressed consent to the grant o! bail to the petitioner. .he petition is i"pressed ith "erit.

Sec. 1. Bail, hen discretionary. N -pon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or li!e i"prison"ent, ad"ission to bail is discretionary. .he application !or bail "ay be !iled and acted upon by the trial court despite the !iling o! a notice o! appeal, provided it has not trans"itted the original record to the appellate court. Ho3#5#r, +' $h# "#c+%+o! o' $h# $r+a) co&r$ co!5+c$+!/ $h# acc&%#" cha!/#" $h# !a$&r# o' $h# o''#!%# 'ro, !o!7-a+)a-)# $o -a+)a-)#, $h# a(()+ca$+o! 'or -a+) ca! o!)* -# '+)#" 3+$h a!" r#%o)5#" -* $h# a((#))a$# co&r$. Should the court grant the application, the accused "ay be allo ed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency o! the appeal under the sa"e bail sub%ect to the consent o! the bonds"an. I' $h# (#!a)$* +,(o%#" -* $h# $r+a) co&r$ +% +,(r+%o!,#!$ #.c##"+!/ %+. 012 *#ar%, $h# acc&%#" %ha)) -# "#!+#" -a+), or h+% -a+) %ha)) -# ca!c#)#" &(o! a %ho3+!/ -* $h# (ro%#c&$+o!, 3+$h !o$+c# $o $h# acc&%#", o' $h# 'o))o3+!/ or o$h#r %+,+)ar c+rc&,%$a!c#% ' CaD .hat he is a recidivist, #uasi=recidivist, or habitual delin#uent, or has co""itted the cri"e aggravated by the circu"stance o! reiterationF CbD .hat he has previously escaped !ro" legal con!ine"ent, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions o! his bail ithout a valid %usti!icationF CcD .hat he co""itted the o!!ense or conditional pardonF hile under probation, parole,

CdD .hat the circu"stances o! his case indicate the probability o! !light i! released on bailF or CeD .hat there is undue ris; that he "ay co""it another cri"e during the pendency o! the appeal. .he appellate court "ay, "otu propio or on "otion o! any party, revie the resolution o! the Regional .rial Court a!ter notice to the adverse party in either case. SEC. 3. Capital o!!ense or an o!!ense punishable by reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, not bailable. = No (#r%o! char/#" 3+$h a ca(+$a) o''#!%#, or a! o''#!%# (&!+%ha-)# -* r#c)&%+o! (#r(#$&a or )+'# +,(r+%o!,#!$, %ha)) -# a",+$$#" $o -a+) 3h#! #5+"#!c# o' /&+)$ +% %$ro!/, r#/ar")#%% o' $h# %$a/# o' $h# cr+,+!a) (ro%#c&$+o!.

Sections 1 and 3, Rule $$/ o! the *777 Revised Rules on Cri"inal Procedure, as a"ended, provide that'

Prior to the a!!ectivity o! the above provisions, the governing rule in the granting or cancellation o! bail as encapsulated in 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/,$7 stating that' Sec. ,. Bail, a "atter o! rightF e&ception. N 0ll persons in custody shall, be!ore !inal conviction, be entitled to bail as a "atter o! right, e&cept those charged ith a capital o!!ense or an o!!ense hich, under the la at the ti"e o! its co""ission and at the ti"e o! the application !or bail, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, hen evidence o! guilt is strong. &&&& SEC. 1 Bail, Ehen Discretionary. N -pon conviction by the Regional .rial Court o! an o!!ense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, the court, on application, "ay ad"it the accused to bail. .he court, in its discretion, "ay allo the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the sa"e bail bond during the period o! appeal sub%ect to the consent o! the bonds"an. I! the court i"posed a penalty o! i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& C2D years but not "ore than t enty C*7D years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be canceled, upon a sho ing by the prosecution, ith notice to the accused, o! the !ollo ing or other si"ilar circu"stances' CaD .hat the accused is a recidivist, #uasi=recidivist, or habitual delin#uent, or has co""itted the cri"e aggravated by the circu"stance o! reiterationF CbD .hat the accused is !ound to have previously escaped !ro" legal con!ine"ent, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions o! his bail ithout valid %usti!icationF CcD .hat the accused co""itted the o!!ense parole, or under conditional pardonF hile on probation,

.he appellate court "ay revie the resolution o! the Regional .rial Court, on "otion and ith notice to the adverse party. 0s can be gleaned above, the set o! circu"stances appearing in Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court brought about by 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/ has been retained in the present Rules. Notably, it as a!ter the ruling o! this Court in)bosa v- Court of !ppeals$$ that the present provisions o! Secs. 1 and 3, Rule $$/ o! the *777 Revised Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure beca"e e!!ective. In canceling petitionerMs bail bond and denying his application !or bail pending appeal, the trial court and the C0, as ell as the OSG in its Co""ent to the petition, relied on )bosa v- C!,$* here this Court ruled that bail cannot be granted as a "atter o! right even a!ter an accused, ho is charged ith a capital o!!ense, appeals his conviction !or a non=capital cri"e. .he said case, ho ever, is not applicable. In )bosa, the petitioner therein as convicted and applied !or bail pending appeal prior to the a!!ectivity o! the a"end"ents brought about by 0d"inistrative Circular No. $*=6/F thus, the set o! circu"stances, as no seen in the present Rules, as yet to be present. Granting arguendo that the present provisions o! Section 1, Rule $$/ can be "ade applicable to petitioner Obosa, this Court, in that sa"e case, still dee"ed hi" to be dis#uali!ied !ro" the grant o! bail on the basic reason that, aside !ro" Obosa being convicted o! t o counts o! ho"icide, circu"stances a, b, d and e o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court ere present. In the present case, as ill be discussed later, not one o! the circu"stances that ould arrant the denial o! bail is present. Incidentally, "agni!ied in the denial o! petitionerMs application !or bail pending appeal as the reliance o! the C0 on the %udg"ent o! conviction rendered by the trial court. 0ccording to the C0, the evidence o! guilt o! the petitioner, as !ound by the trial court, as strong, there!ore, the provisions o! Section 3 o! Rule $$/ o! the *777 Revised Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure ere applicable, the cri"e charged being "urder. <o ever, it "ust be re"e"bered that although petitioner as charged ith the cri"e o! "urder, he as convicted o! the cri"e o! ho"icide. Prior to the said conviction, the trial court, a!ter bail hearing, granted bail to petitioner, thus' 0ccordingly, 'or 'a+)&r# o' $h# (ro%#c&$+o! $o "#,o!%$ra$# $ha$ $h# #5+"#!c# o' /&+)$ o' $h# acc&%#" Jo%# A!$o!+o J. L#5+%$# 'or $h# cr+,# o' M&r"#r +% %$ro!/ to !oreclose his right to bail, the court hereby grants the "otion and, allo s the accused to post bail in the a"ount o! P,77,777.77 !or his provisional liberty. 0ccused shall be discharged or released only upon the approval o! his bail by the Court. SO ORDERED.$,

CdD .hat the circu"stances o! the accused or his case indicate the probability i! !light o! released on bailF or CeD .hat there is undue ris; that during the pendency o! the appeal, the accused "ay co""it another cri"e.

-lti"ately, a!ter the trial o! the case, the trial court !ound petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt o! the cri"e o! ho"icide, not "urder as originally charged, de"onstrating the consistency o! the trial courtMs !indings in the bail hearing and in the actual trial o! the said case. Nevertheless, the C0, in denying petitionerMs application !or bail, relied on Section 3, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court insisting that the evidence o! guilt o! the petitioner as strong. By ruling thus, the C0 has not accorded respect to the !actual !indings o! the trial court. It is a ti"e=honored legal precept, in this regard that the !indings o! !act o! the trial court are accorded great respect by appellate courts and should not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has overloo;ed, ignored, or disregarded so"e !act or circu"stance o! su!!icient eight or signi!icance hich, i! considered, ould alter the situation.$/ :oreover, there see"s to be a disparity bet een the pronounce"ent o! the C0 that the trial court !ound the evidence o! guilt o! the petitioner strong and the e&planation o! hy the !or"er considered it to be so. .he C0 ruled that' Aro" the %udg"ent o! conviction rendered by the trial court, $h# (ro%#c&$+o! ha" "#,o!%$ra$#" $ha$ a((#))a!$C% /&+)$ +% %$ro!/, a'$#r '+!"+!/ $ha$ acc&%#" 'a+)#" $o %a$+%'* $h# r#6&+r#,#!$% o' %#)'7"#'#!%# $o 9&%$+'* $h# %hoo$+!/ o' $h# 5+c$+, . Said court care!ully and "eticulously evaluated the evidence on record and ruled that the clai" o! appellant that the victi" as the agressor deserves disbelie! considering that evidence at the scene o! the cri"e indicated that the victi" could not have !ired the gun apparently placed in his handF appellantMs conduct in re!using to be sub%ected to para!!in test is not the natural tendency o! a person clai"ing sel!=de!enseF and neither as appellant threatened or inti"idated by the victi"Ms averred pugnacious, #uarrelso"e or trouble= see;ing character o! the victi". 0nd even assu"ing arguendo that there as unla !ul aggression, the trial court !ound that the !ive C1D gunshot ounds C!ourD ?/@ shots even ai"ed at head, a vital organD ere not reasonable "eans to repel the sa"e, and the evidence de"onstrated a deter"ined e!!ort on the part o! the appellant to ;ill the victi" and not %ust to de!end hi"sel!. Ho3#5#r, a((#))a!$ 3a% co!5+c$#" o' $h# )#%%#r o''#!%# 0ho,+c+"#2 %+!c# $h# 6&a)+'*+!/ c+rc&,%$a!c#% o' $r#ach#r*, #5+"#!$ (r#,#"+$a$+o! a!" cr&#)$* or +/!o,+!*, a))#/#" +! $h# A,#!"#" I!'or,a$+o!, 3#r# !o$ "&)* (ro5#! a$ $h# $r+a). $1 .he above observation o! the C0 serves nothing but to bolster the earlier !inding o! the trial court that the prosecution as not able to present evidence that ould prove that the guilt o! the petitioner as to the cri"e charged C"urderD as strong. Section 3, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court, clearly "andates that no person char/#" ith a capital o!!ense, or an o!!ense punishable by reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent, shall be ad"itted to bail hen evidence o! guilt is strong. .he provision distinctly re!ers to the cri"e charged and not the cri"e proven. .he !ailure then o! the prosecution to prove the e&istence o! the circu"stances to #uali!y the cri"e co""itted to "urder, the cri"e charged, necessarily "eans that the evidence o! his guilt o! the said cri"e is not strong.

Ideally, hat the C0 should have done as to consolidate the application !or bail ith the petition !iled be!ore it because it is only in that "anner by hich the appellate court "ay ascertain hether the evidence o! guilt o! the accused !or the cri"e charged is indeed strong, or in reverse, hether the lo er court as right in convicting the accused o! a lesser o!!ense. 0bove all else, the C0 should have applied the provisions o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court, herein the appellate court is given the discretion to grant bail to the petitioner a!ter considering the enu"erated circu"stances, the penalty i"posed by the trial court having e&ceeded si& years. 0lthough this Court has held that the discretion to e&tend bail during the course o! the appeal should be e&ercised ith grave caution and !or strong reasons, considering that the accused has been in !act convicted by the trial court,$2 the set o! circu"stances succinctly provided in Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the Rules o! Court should be considered. .he said set o! circu"stances has been provided as a guide !or the e&ercise o! the appellate courtMs discretion in granting or denying the application !or bail, pending the appeal o! an accused ho has been convicted o! a cri"e here the penalty i"posed by the trial court is i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& C2D years. Other ise, i! it is intended that the said discretion be absolute, no such set o! circu"stances ould have been necessarily included in the Rules. .hus, i! the present ruling o! the C0 is upheld, anyone ho has been charged ith a capital o!!ense, or an o!!ense punishable by reclusion perpetua or li!e i"prison"ent but convicted by the trial court o! a lesser o!!ense, ould no longer be able to apply !or bail pending one+s appeal. 0nd by that pre"ise, the discretion accorded to the appellate court in granting or denying applications !or bail !or those ho have been convicted by the trial court ith i"prison"ent e&ceeding si& C2D years as penalty ould have to be rendered nugatory and the provisions o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the *777 Revised Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure ould also be rendered useless. .here!ore, applying the provisions o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the *777 Revised Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure and a!ter a care!ul perusal o! the records and a learned consideration o! the argu"ents o! the parties, this Court !inds no reason to deny petitioner his application !or bail pending appeal. Petitioner is indisputably not a recidivist, #uasi=recidivist, or habitual delin#uent, or has he co""itted the cri"e aggravated by the circu"stance o! reiteration. <e has also not previously escaped !ro" legal con!ine"ent, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions o! his bail ithout a valid %usti!ication. <e did not co""it the o!!ense charged hile under probation, parole, or conditional pardon. 9astly, as sho n by his previous records and pointed out by petitioner,$3 considering his conduct hile out on bail during the trial o! his case, his advanced age, $5 and his current health condition,$6 the probability o! !light is nil and there is no ris; that he "ay co""it another cri"e during the pendency o! the appeal.

0lso noted by this Court is the letter o! the heirs o! Ra!ael de las 0las giving their consent and stating that they have no ob%ection to petitionerMs application !or bail. 0lthough the said letter or consent can never be a basis !or the grant o! the application !or bail, it serves as a re!erence !or the petitionerMs i"probability to evade hatever negative result the grant o! his appeal "ight bring. Nonetheless, hat governs in this case is the discretion o! the appellate court as guided by the provisions o! Section 1, Rule $$/ o! the *777 Revised Rules o! Cri"inal Procedure. Necessarily, due to the above discussion, I hu"bly dissent. BIOSBABO M. ERALTA 0ssociate 8ustice