LEVISTE vs CA

G.R. No. 189122 | MARCH 17, 2010 | CORONA

TOPIC: RULE 114 – BAIL AFTER CONVICTION

DOCTRINE: Any application for bail pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective of two stages:
(1) the determination of discretion stage, where the appellate court must determine whether any of the
circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present; this will establish whether or not the
appellate court will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application for bail
pending appeal and
(2) the exercise of discretion stage where, assuming the appellants case falls within the first scenario
allowing the exercise of sound discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant circumstances, other
than those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the demands of equity and
justice; on the basis thereof, it may either allow or disallow bail.

ER: LEVISTE was charged for murder but was only convicted for homicide by the RTC. Pending appeal,
he filed for bail citing his health and age. CA denied. SC agreed with the CA. DOCTRINE.

FACTS:
- Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one
day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

- He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application
for admission to bail pending appeal, citing his advanced age and health condition, and claiming
the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part.

- The Court of Appeals denied petitioners application for bail. It invoked the bedrock principle in the
matter of bail pending appeal, that the discretion to extend bail during the course of appeal should
be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. Citing well-established jurisprudence,
it ruled that bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical care
outside the prison facility. It found that petitioner failed to show that he suffers from ailment of such
gravity that his continued confinement during trial will permanently impair his health or put his life
in danger. x x x Notably, the physical condition of [petitioner] does not prevent him from seeking
medical attention while confined in prison, though he clearly preferred to be attended by his
personal physician.

- Petitioner now questions as grave abuse of discretion the denial of his application for bail,
considering that none of the conditions justifying denial of bail under the third paragraph of Section
5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was present. Petitioners theory is that, where the penalty imposed
by the trial court is more than six years but not more than 20 years and the circumstances
mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5 are absent, bail must be granted to an appellant
pending appeal.

ISSUE:
- The question presented to the Court is this: in an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant
sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment for more than six years, does the
discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be
granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114
of the Rules of Court? NOPE.

HELD:
- It cannot be said that the Court of Appeals issued the assailed resolution without or in excess of its
jurisdiction. One, pending appeal of a conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is expressly
 declared to be discretionary. Two, the discretion to allow or disallow bail pending appeal in a case
such as this where the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the
offense from non-bailable to bailable is exclusively lodged by the rules with the appellate court.
Thus, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear and resolve petitioners’ urgent application for
admission to bail pending appeal.

- The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on
the appellant applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years. The first scenario deals with
the circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph not present. The second scenario
contemplates the existence of at least one of the said circumstances.

- In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, if none of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate
court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be denied
even if the bail-negating[26]circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent.
In other words, the appellate courts denial of bail pending appeal where none of the said
circumstances exists does not, by and of itself, constitute abuse of discretion.

- On the other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion,
that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so
determines, it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Conversely, if the
appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion will thereby be committed.

- Given these two distinct scenarios, therefore, any application for bail pending appeal should be
viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1) the determination of discretion stage, where the
appellate court must determine whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph of Section
5, Rule 114 is present; this will establish whether or not the appellate court will exercise sound
discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the
exercise of discretion stage where, assuming the appellants case falls within the first scenario
allowing the exercise of sound discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant
circumstances, other than those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including
the demands of equity and justice;[27] on the basis thereof, it may either allow or disallow bail.

- On the other hand, if the appellants case falls within the second scenario, the appellate courts
stringent discretion requires that the exercise thereof be primarily focused on the determination of
the proof of the presence of any of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance of bail.
This is so because the existence of any of those circumstances is by itself sufficient to deny or
revoke bail. Nonetheless, a finding that none of the said circumstances is present will not
automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding will simply authorize the court to use
the less stringent sound discretion approach.