Case Digest: Leviste vs CA GR No 189122

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, Levisete 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.