This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-12-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Mañalac, Jr., the defendants argued that they should be allowed to post bail since reclusion perpetua is not the prescribed penalty for the offense but merely describes the penalty actually imposed on account of the fraud involved. It was also posited that Article 48 of the RPC applies "only after the accused has been convicted in a full-blown trial such that the court is mandated to impose the penalty of the most serious crime," and that the reason for the imposition of the penalty of the most serious offense is "only for the purpose of determining the correct penalty upon the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law." This Court, through the Third Division, however, denied the petition and resolved in the affirmative the issue of whether the constitutional right to bail of an accused is restricted in cases whose imposable penalty ranges from reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Citing People v. Pantaleon, Jr., et al.,[15] in relation to Section 13, Article III of the Constitution and Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules, it was held that Mañalac, Jr. is not entitled to bail as a matter of right since he is charged with a crime whose penalty is reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2001-06-29 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| In bail proceedings, the prosecution must be given ample opportunity to show that the evidence of guilt is strong. While the proceeding is conducted as a regular trial, it must be limited to the determination of the bailability of the accused. It should be brief and speedy, lest the purpose for which it is available is rendered nugatory. Antecedents of this case show that the case was initially raffled to Branch 24, RTC, Biñan, Laguna, and then transferred to RTC San Pedro, Laguna. From the filing of the two (2) criminal Informations, several motions and petitions were received by the trial court, which include, among others, application for bail, motion for re-investigation, motion to inhibit and change of venue, motion to transfer appellants from the municipal jail to Sta. Cruz provincial jail, petition for review filed with the Department of Justice and motion for postponements. In the course of hearing the petition for bail, several petitions and motions cluttered the records of the trial court. In fact, the records of the case were not immediately forwarded to RTC San Pedro, Laguna when the hearing was transferred. We have scoured the records of this case and we found that the delay was caused by these factors. These, however, did not justify the length of time consumed by the prosecution in the presentation of its evidence because the trial court, exercising its discretion, ought to control the course of bail proceedings, "avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and reducing to a reasonable minimum the amount of corroboration particularly on details that are not essential to the purpose of the hearing."[20] While the prosecution tarried too long, such fact did not amount to a denial of due process because bail is granted only "where it is uncertain whether the accused is guilty or innocent,"[21] which is not attendant in this case. | |||||