Title
Paderanga vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 115407
Decision Date
Aug 28, 1995
A co-conspirator in a multiple murder case contests bail from hospital custody, raising issues of constructive custody and the prosecution's opportunity to object.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 115407)

Facts:

  • Miguel P. Paderanga was the petitioner against the Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
  • In 1984, Paderanga, then mayor of Gingoog City, was implicated in the multiple murder of the Bucag family.
  • Original information was filed on October 6, 1986, against eight accused; only Felipe Galarion was apprehended and convicted.
  • Galarion escaped from prison, while the other accused remained at large.
  • In 1988, Felizardo Roxas was charged as a co-accused and implicated Paderanga as the mastermind in a signed affidavit, which he later retracted.
  • On January 28, 1990, Paderanga was charged as a co-conspirator in an amended information.
  • Paderanga filed a motion for bail on October 28, 1992, while hospitalized due to acute costochondritis.
  • The trial court granted bail on November 5, 1992, allowing Paderanga to post P200,000.
  • The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and subsequently elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
  • The appellate court annulled the trial court's decision on November 24, 1993, citing grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that Paderanga was constructively in the custody of the law when he filed his application for bail.
  • The Court found that the trial court did not violate procedural due process, as the prosecution had waived its right to present evidence against the bail application....(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that a person seeking bail must be in the custody of the law, which can be established through actual arrest or voluntary surrender.
  • Paderanga's bail application while hospitalized constituted a constructive submission to the court's jurisdiction, effectively placing him in custody.
  • The Court referenced previous rulings, including Santiago vs. Vasquez, to support that filing a motion for bail can confer jurisdiction over the accused.
  • Regardi...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.