Case Summary (G.R. No. 113003)
Key Dates
• RTC decision and sentence: January 14, 2009
• RTC order canceling bail bond: January 14, 2009
• CA resolution denying bail pending appeal: April 8, 2009
• CA resolution denying motion for reconsideration: July 14, 2009
• Supreme Court decision dismissing certiorari petition: March 17, 2010
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 13 – Right to bail except where offense punishable by reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt is strong.
• Rules of Court (2000), Rule 114, Section 5 – Bail pending appeal discretionary for non-capital offenses; mandatory denial or cancellation if penalty exceeds six years and any enumerated or similar circumstances exist.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court – Certiorari may annul interlocutory orders only for lack/excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
Factual Background
• Leviste was charged with murder for the death of Rafael de las Alas on January 12, 2007.
• He posted bail ex abundanti cautela before trial; the RTC granted bail, finding the evidence of murder not strong.
• After trial, the RTC convicted him of homicide and imposed an indeterminate prison term of six years and one day to twelve years and one day.
• The RTC then canceled his bail bond pursuant to Rule 114, Section 5.
• Leviste appealed to the CA and filed an urgent application for bail pending appeal, citing advanced age, health issues, and no flight risk.
• The CA denied bail, holding that bail pending appeal must be exercised “with grave caution and only for strong reasons” and that the evidence of guilt was sufficiently strong.
Issue
Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in denying bail pending appeal when none of the specific bail-negating circumstances under Rule 114, Section 5, third paragraph, was shown.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
– Admission to bail pending appeal for non-capital offenses is discretionary with the appellate court.
– Certiorari under Rule 65 requires a clear showing of lack/excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion; mere error of judgment is insufficient.Interpretation of Rule 114, Section 5
– Two stages govern bail pending appeal when penalty exceeds six years:
a. Determination of discretion (whether any enumerated or similar bail-negating circumstances exist).
b. Exercise of discretion (sound discretion if none exist; stringent discretion if any are proven).
– Absence of enumerated circumstances does not compel automatic bail; the appellate court retains broader discretion to consider all relevant factors, including the strength of the appeal (i.e., whether substantial questions are raised), public interest, and the presumption that the lower court’s decision is sound.Preliminary Appraisal of Merits
– The CA made a prima facie evaluation, finding no substantial reason to overturn the RTC’s conclusion of guilt.
– Such preliminary appraisal is proper to ensure the appeal is not frivolous and is in keeping with cautious standards for post-conviction bail.Bail-Negating Circumstances
– The explicit enumeration in Rule 114 includes recidivism, flight risk, prior bail violations, commission while on conditional liberty, undue risk of reoffense, or other similar factors.
– The provision’s “or other simil
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 113003)
Background and Context
- Bail is the security given by an accused in custody to guarantee appearance at court, balancing pretrial liberty and society’s interest in accountability.
- Upon conviction for non-capital offenses, an accused may apply for bail pending appeal; denial can result in unjust pre-appellate detention.
- The Rules of Court entrust post-conviction bail decisions to judicial discretion, exercised “with grave caution and only for strong reasons.”
Facts
- Petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was charged with murder for the killing of Rafael de las Alas.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City convicted him of the lesser offense of homicide, sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and 1 day imprisonment, plus damages.
- Petitioner appealed and filed an urgent application for bail pending appeal, citing advanced age, health concerns, and no flight risk.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) denied bail, finding petitioner’s confinement did not permanently endanger his health and that the evidence against him was prima facie strong.
Procedural History
- January 14, 2009: RTC renders Decision convicting petitioner of homicide and, in a separate Order, cancels his original bail bond.
- January 15, 2009: Petitioner files Notice of Appeal and urgent application for bail pending appeal before the CA.
- April 8, 2009: CA Resolution denies bail application, invoking “grave caution” and a preliminary evaluation of guilt.
- July 14, 2009: CA denies motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner files a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Legal Issue
- Does the discretionary nature of bail pending appeal under Section 5, Rule 114, im