Today is Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

DECISION

, 2001 Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 20431 which granted the Motion for Bail2 of accused-appellant, h

minal Case No. 422-94, charged Fitzgerald, an Australian citizen, with Violation of Art. III, Section 5, paragraph (a), subparagraph (5)

ppines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused VICTOR KEITH FITZGERALD, actuated by lust, and by the u
fts, clothes and food and thereafter having carnal knowledge of her in violation of the aforesaid law and to her damage and prejudice

ads:

oubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Paragraph (a) sub-paragraph 5 of Republic Act No. 7610, he is hereby sentenced to suff
m, with all the accessory penalties attached therewith; and to indemnify the private complainant "AAA" the amounts of P30,000.00 as m

ngapo City shall hold in trust the said awards and dispose the same solely for the rehabilitation and education of "AAA", to the exclus

eventive imprisonment if he has agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoner
ely and forever barred from entry to the Philippines.

e bail petition, the Court is of the considered view that the circumstances of the accused indicate probability of flight and that there is

ng appeal is DENIED.

on, thus:

ellant is imprisonment of Fourteen (14) years, Eight (8) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal to Twenty (20) years and One

round that new and material evidence not previously available had surfaced. The CA granted the Motion for New Trial in a Resolution

D. The original records of this case is hereby REMANDED to the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo Cit
ether with the transcript of stenographic notes together with the records of the case within ten (10) days after the reception

e Fitzgerald filed a Motion to Fix Bail with Manifestation.14 Both Motions were denied by the CA in its November 13, 2000 Resolution.

ions of Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which provides:

mprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life impriso

0 otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act is reclusion perpetu

ant is not precluded from seeking medical attention if the need arises provided the necessary representations with the prop

oning the August 25, 2000 and November 13, 2000 CA Resolutions. The petition was dismissed in a Resolution18dated January 15, 2

rds and for the Re-Examination of the Penalty Imposed, and a Motion for Bail.20 The People filed its Comment21 to both Motions.
n, thus:

have taken a second look at appellant's plea for temporary liberty considering primarily the fact that appellant is already of old age23 a
st of substantial justice and considering the new trial granted in this case. Accordingly, appellant is hereby DIRECTED to post a bail b
pellant is likewise refrained from leaving the country now or in the future until this case is terminated. Accordingly, the Bureau of Imm

Petitioner argues that the CA erred in granting respondent Fitzgerald's Motion for Bail despite the fact that the latter was charged with
new trial.27

findings of the existence of strong evidence of his guilt;28 and justifies his provisional release on humanitarian grounds, citing as an e

granting a new trial, still had jurisdiction to act on respondent's Motion to Post Bail. Our ruling on this matter, however, shall be limitte

C for new trial, had become final and executory on May 2, 2001 when this Court denied its petition for review in G.R. No. 146008, the

1 and the judgment of the CA affirming it,32 and remands the case to the trial court for reception of newly-discovered evidence and pro

Rule 125 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides for uniformity in appellate criminal procedure between this Court a
orted newly-discovered evidence under Sec. 12,38 or (b) refer the case to the court of origin for reception of such evidence under Sec

the case to the RTC; second, that the RTC receive the new evidence material to appellant's defense within 60 days from receipt of th
CA retained appellate jurisdiction over the case, even as it delegated to the RTC the function of receiving the respondent's newly-dis
ed his bail application and the CA acted on it.

ed when it allowed respondent to bail.

stody of the law who may, by reason of the presumption of innocence he enjoys,41 be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a secur

es of Criminal Procedure set forth substantive and procedural rules on the disposition of bail applications. Sec. 4 provides that bail is
an accusation for an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of his guilt is strong.46 A
der Sec. 5, paragraphs (a) to (e), to wit:
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for
ial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be fi

ional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

e accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the fol
s previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) Tha
here is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. (Emphasis supplied)

(5), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, a crime which carries the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was later convicted by the RTC
of reclusion temporal as maximum.

tained appellate jurisdiction over the case even as it ordered the remand of the original records thereof to the RTC for reception of ev

ged as well as the penalty imposed thereto should be resolved during the appreciation of the new trial after considering the new evide

od sentenced to an imprisonment term exceeding six years.

the guilt of respondent.49 These findings were not overturned when the CA granted a new trial. Under Section 6 (b), Rule 121, the gra
hat too subsists unless, upon another motion and hearing, the prosecution fails to prove that the evidence against the accused has re
gainst respondent.

mere privilege subject to the discretion of the CA to be exercised in accordance with the stringent requirements of Sec. 5, Rule 114. A
due risk that the accused may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

on the grounds stated in his Motion for Bail xxx," but "xxx primarily [on] the fact that [he] is already of old age and is not in the best of

ndent; it is worse that it granted bail on the mere claim of the latter's illness. Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or pr
so be an existing proposition for the "selective decarceration of older prisoners" based on findings that recidivism rates decrease as a
put his life in danger. It merely declared respondent not in the best of health even when the only evidence on record as to the latter's
as even rebuffed by the CA itself when, in its November 13, 2000 Resolution, it held that the physical condition of respondent does no

ts August 1, 1996 Order, the RTC noted that the circumstances of respondent indicate an undue risk that he would commit a similar

sexual disorder and sexual dysfunction. It is intense and recurrent. The possibility of the commission of a similar offense for which th

ng, therefore, remains controlling. It warranted the outright denial of respondent's bail application. The CA, therefore, erred when it gr

ASIDE. The bail bond posted by respondent is CANCELLED. Let an ORDER OF ARREST ISSUE against the person of the accuse
gino, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring and Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, dissenting.

, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexu

osed upon the following:

but are not limited to, the following:

ent to engage such child in prostitution.

d September 19, 2006 in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC.

uero and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring.

pines v. Del Mundo, 330 Phil. 824 (1996).

6, 484.

, the procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals.

cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases (a) f
.

s may conduct the hearing and receive evidence as provided in Section 12 of this Rules or refer the trial to the court of origin.
siding Judge, RTC of Muntinlupa City (Branch 276), G.R. No. 151005, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 319, 324.

etua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as ma

ail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after convi
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

ple of the Philippines v. Presiding Judge, RTC of Muntinlupa City (Branch 276), supra note 42.

Phil. 502, 506-507 (1971).

(2001); People of the Philippines v. Hon. Ireneo Gako, 401 Phil. 514, 541 (2000).

Rama v. People's Court, 77 Phil. 461, 465 (1946); Archer's case, 6 Gratt 705; and Ex parte Smith, 2 Okla. Crim. Rep. 24, 99 Pfc. 893

ce System, pp. 233-234 (2000).