Title
People vs. Fitzgerald
Case
G.R. No. 149723
Decision Date
Oct 27, 2006
Australian national convicted of child exploitation under RA 7610; bail denied due to strong evidence, flight risk, and non-bailable offense despite health claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149723)

Procedural History

– Information filed in RTC Branch 75, Olongapo City (Criminal Case No. 422-94) charging RA 7610 violation punishable by reclusion perpetua.
– RTC Decision (May 7, 1996) convicted Fitzgerald of a lesser offense, sentencing him to 8 years and 1 day to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day imprisonment, ordering indemnity and eventual deportation; acquitted in Criminal Case No. 419-94.
– RTC denied bail (August 1, 1996) for risk of flight and likelihood of reoffending.
– CA affirmed conviction (Decision, September 27, 1999) with modified penalty of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years and 1 day.
– CA granted new trial (Resolution, August 25, 2000), remanding records to RTC to receive new evidence; subsequent CA reconsideration (November 13, 2000) denied bail.
– CA granted bail (Resolution, August 31, 2001) on humanitarian grounds (age and health) despite “strong evidence” and the remand order.
– People filed Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court challenging CA’s bail grant and its jurisdiction.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 13: Right to bail except for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
– Rules of Court, Rule 114, Sections 4–5 (2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure):
• Sec. 4 makes bail a matter of right except in capital or life-imprisonment cases with strong evidence.
• Sec. 5 enumerates grounds for discretionary refusal or revocation of bail for convictions exceeding six years (probability of flight, risk of reoffending, etc.).
– RA 7610, Sec. 5(a)(5): Imposes reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua for inducing a child to prostitution by giving pecuniary benefit.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals after a New Trial Grant

The CA’s August 25, 2000 Resolution granting new trial did not divest it of jurisdiction. Under Rule 124, Sections 12 and 15, the CA may retain appellate authority while directing the trial court to receive new evidence. It remained competent to resolve ancillary matters, including bail applications, pending transmission of the records.

Nature and Scope of the Right to Bail

Bail flows from the presumption of innocence. Under the 1987 Constitution and Rule 114:
– Accused persons are generally entitled to bail before conviction for non-capital offenses.
– For offenses with penalties up to reclusion perpetua, bail is discretionary when evidence of guilt is strong.
– After conviction and sentencing exceeding six years, bail may be denied or revoked upon showing any of the enumerated circumstances (e.g., flight risk, risk of another offense).

Defects in the Court of Appeals’ Bail Grant

– The CA based bail on respondent’s age and health without finding a compelling medical necessity or life-threatening condition.
– It acknowledged “strong evidence” of guilt yet admitted Fitzgerald to bail on “humanitarian grounds,” ignoring the procedural and substantive prerequisites of Rule 114, Sec. 5.
– The CA did not address any of the required grounds (probability of flight, risk of reoffending), instead granting bail on an unarticulated basis unrelated to the Motion filed.

Established Risk of Reoffending

The RTC, upon the original bail application, found Fitzgerald suffered from pedophilia—a recurrent and inte




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.