Leviste vs CA

GR No 189122
March 17, 2010

Facts:
Jose Antonio Leviste was charged with the crime of murder but was
convicted by the RTC for the lesser crime of homicide. He appealed
the RTC's decision to the CA then he field an application for
admission to bail pending appeal, due to his advanced age and
health condition, and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility
of flight on his part.
The CA denied his application on the ground that the discretion to
extend bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with
grave caution and only for strong reasons. That bail is not a sick
pass for an ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical
care outside the prison facility.
On this matter, Leviste questioned the ruling of the CA and averred
that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in the denial of his
application for bail considering that none of the conditions justifying
denial of bail under the Sec. 5 (3) Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was
present. That when the penalty imposed by the trial court is more
than six years but not more than 20 years and the circumstances in
the above-mentioned provision are absent, bail must be granted to
an appellant pending appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying the application for bail of Leviste.

Ruling:
No, under Sec 5 of Rule 114 bail is discretionary, upon conviction by
the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment. Under par. 3 of the same rule if the penalty
impose is more than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail, or his
bail be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to

the accused, of the following or other circumstances:

that he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
that he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without a valid
justification;
that he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;
that the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
that there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during
the pendency of the appeal.
That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary pending appeal
and it cannot be said that CA committed grave abuse of discretion.
After conviction by the trial court, the presumption of innocence
terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends,
from then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.