G.R. No. 149723 - People vs. Fitzgerald

An Information was filed in RTC, Branch 75, Olongapo City (Crim. Case No. 422-94) charging Victor Keith Fitzgerald, an Australian citizen, with Violation of R.A. No. 7610, Art. III, Sec. 5(a)(5) – inducing a 13-year-old minor (“AAA”) to engage in prostitution and having carnal knowledge of her by use of laced drugs and gifts.
After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision on May 7, 1996, finding Fitzgerald GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor (minimum) to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal (maximum), plus moral (P30,000) and exemplary (P20,000) damages, credit for preventive imprisonment, deportation and permanent bar from re-entry.
Fitzgerald was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 419-94 for rape.

Fitzgerald’s Motion for Bail (Aug. 1, 1996) in the RTC was denied for probability of flight and risk of committing a similar offense.
He appealed to the CA; on Sept. 27, 1999 the CA affirmed the conviction with modified penalty (14 years, 8 months + 1 day of reclusion temporal to 20 years + 1 day of reclusion perpetua).
Fitzgerald filed a Motion for New Trial (Oct. 14, 1999); the CA granted it in a Resolution dated Aug. 25, 2000, remanding the case to the RTC for reception of new evidence, and denied bail (Nov. 13, 2000) under Rule 114, Sec. 7 (offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, evidence strong).
The petition for review of those CA Resolutions to the SC was dismissed (Jan. 15, 2001; final May 2, 2001).

On Aug. 31, 2001 the CA issued a separate Resolution granting Fitzgerald temporary liberty upon posting a P100,000 bail bond, citing “substantial justice” and humanitarian grounds of his advanced age (70) and poor health, despite reaffirming that “evidence of guilt is strong.”
The CA ordered him included in the hold departure list; on Sept. 4, 2001 the RTC released him upon bond posting.

The People filed a Petition under Rule 45 seeking annulment of the CA’s Aug. 31, 2001 Resolution, arguing lack of jurisdiction post-remand and violation of Rule 114 (offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, evidence strong).
Fitzgerald contended the CA retained jurisdiction despite the remand and justified bail on humanitarian grounds of age and health.

Whether the Court of Appeals, after granting a new trial and remanding the case to the RTC, retained jurisdiction to act on Fitzgerald’s Motion for Bail.
Whether the CA erred in granting bail for an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt was strong, and in relying on humanitarian grounds not enumerated in Rule 114.