Facts:
Jose Antonio Leviste was charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City convicted Leviste, not of murder which is a capital offense, but for the lesser crime of homicide—sentencing him to imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and one day. Leviste, appealing his conviction, sought bail pending appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA), predicated on his advanced age and medical condition, arguing no risk of flight. The CA denied his bail application, grounding its decision on the discretionary nature of bail pending appeal and underscoring the gravity of the offense and penalty imposed. Leviste’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting recourse before the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. He argued grave abuse of discretion, asserting that in the absence of specific circumstances enumerated in Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, bail pending appeal should be allowed where the penalty imposed exceeds six years but is not a capital offense.
Issues:
1. Whether the denial of bail pending appeal by the CA was a grave abuse of discretion despite the absence of circumstances enumerated under Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
2. Whether the discretionary nature of bail pending appeal requires its automatic approval in the absence of specified circumstances in the same provision.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the CA’s resolution. The High Court articulated the critical distinction between bail as a matter of right before conviction (where the presumption of innocence applies) and discretionary bail pending appeal (where the presumption of innocence no longer applies). It noted that the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 covers situations where the RTC penalty exceeds six years and where the presence or absence of certain circumstances influences the grant or denial of bail.
1. The appellate court’s denial of bail pending appeal is not limited to verifying the existence or absence of specific circumstances enumerated in Rule 114. Instead, it involves two stages of discretion: determination of discretion and exercise of discretion. Absence of enumerated circumstances authorizes the court to use its sound discretion, but it does not necessitate the automatic granting of bail, as it must ascertain the potential frivolity of the appeal.
2. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion, and the denial of bail was the result of careful evaluation. The CA meticulously assessed Leviste’s evidence and the gravity of the offense, balancing societal interest and the accused’s rights. The Supreme Court recognized that granting bail too freely post-conviction might disrupt the integrity of the justice system and diminish the deterrent effect of criminal laws.
Doctrine:
The Supreme Court established that bail pending appeal is discretionary and should be exercised with grave caution, taking into account societal interests and the rights of the accused, with a presumption against it post-conviction. The Court emphasized stringent standards in the exercise of such discretion, which requires a methodical approach, including an analysis of the potential frivolity of the appeal and considerations extending beyond the specific circumstances enumerated in Rule 114.
Class Notes:
– Bail before conviction is a right, barring capital offenses with strong evidence of guilt. Post-conviction, it is discretionary.
– In discretionary bail, the absence of conditions listed in Rule 114, Section 5 does not guarantee approval; it merely moves the court from stringent to sound discretion.
– “Grave abuse of discretion” implies such a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of power amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Historical Background:
The Court elucidated the historical transformation of the rules on bail, elucidating the shift from a more permissive approach to a more restrictive one post-conviction, mirroring similar trends in other jurisdictions. This historical context showcases the evolution toward a system that emphasizes caution in the discretionary release of convicted individuals seeking appeal, which is in line with the overriding principle that the right to bail terminates upon conviction.
Leave a Reply