This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY SOLELY RELYING ON THE CASES OF PEOPLE V. HERNANDO AND PEOPLE V. PANGANIBAN WHICH INVOLVE FACTS DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE.[17] Petitioner Cenzon endeavors to build his case by invoking People v. Reyes,[18] and the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of the DOJ. According to petitioner Cenzon, the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of the DOJ recommends NO BAIL for Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818, if the amount of the fraud is P32,000.00 or over. It is petitioner Cenzon's theory that NO BAIL is recommended in such cases, because the penalty prescribed therein is reclusion perpetua.[19] Petitioner Cenzon posits that the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of the DOJ was made pursuant to Section 13,[20] Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, when evidence of guilt is strong, are not bailable. | |||||