Cypril Calpito Qui v.

People of the Philippines

GR No. 196161
September 26, 2012

FACTS: Cyril Calpito Qui was charged with two counts of violation of Section 10 (a) of Special
Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. Qui allegedly
committed acts of cruelty and child abuse upon a minor by angrily shouting invectives while pointing her
fingers at said minor and threatening to knock down his head.
On its decision, the Regional Trial Court convicted the accused. The accused, through appeal,
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals with a subsequent pleading of Application for Bail. However,
the OSG urged for the denial of the bail application on the ground of petitioners propensity to evade the
law and that she is a flight-risk, as she in fact failed to attend several hearings before the RTC resulting in
the issuance of three warrants for her arrest. On its Resolution, the CA denied the accuseds application
for bail on basis of Sec. 5 (d) of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The accused filed a
Motion for Reconsideration which was likewise denied by the appellate court. Hence, this Petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court correctly denied the accuseds application for bail

HELD: Yes. The CA correctly applied Sec. 5 (d) of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail
is discretionary.

x x x bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused,
of the following or other similar circumstances:

xxxx

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail;

x x x x

Here, the accused did not attend the hearings before the RTC, which compelled the trial court to
issue warrant for her arrest. This fact alone should weigh heavily against a grant of bail pending appeal.
Furthermore, after one is convicted by the trial court, the presumption of innocence, and with it, the
constitutional right to bail, ends. Accordingly, the accused also lied to the Court about her explanations
why she failed to attend different court hearings. Hence, with the continuous evasion by the accused to
attend court proceedings is a sufficient evidence that she indeed, has a tendency to leave if release on bail.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REY APATAY

GR. NO. 147965

JULY 7, 2004

FACTS: The lifeless body of 77-year old Catalina Baluran was found inside the hole of an abandoned
toilet. Apatay, overwhelmed by his conscience, surrendered to the police station. Apatay, assisted by the counsel,
executed a sworn statement in the Visayan dialect. He admitted that he raped Catalina and because the victim was
able to identify him, he choked her to death. He was charged with Rape with Homicide. At the arraignment, the
Information was read and translated to him in his own Visayan dialect and he entered a plea of guilty to the offense
charged. Immediately, the trial judge asked appellant searching questions. He confirmed the details of his extra-
judicial confession. The court, thereafter, found Rey Apatay guilty of rape with homicide.

The defense, however, questioned the decision contending that (a) the trial court failed to conduct a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by him of the consequences of his plea; and (b) the trial
court failed to ask him whether he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court judge conducted the arraignment in conformity with the procedure

HELD: YES. Section 1, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that,
The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial.
The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the
complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he
pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint
or information.

Further, when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, Section 3 of the same Rule specifies the steps to be
followed by the trial court, thus:

SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. When the accused pleads
guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt
and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf.

The singular barometer is that the judge must, in all cases, fully convince himself that: (1) the accused, in pleading
guilty, is doing so voluntarily meaning, he was not coerced or threatened of physical harm, or placed under a state
of duress; and (2) that he is truly guilty on the basis of his testimony. In the case at bar, the records show that during
the arraignment, the Information was read to appellant in the Visayan dialect which he speaks and understands.
After he entered a plea of guilty, the trial judge properly conducted a searching inquiry translated by the court
interpreter into his Visayan dialect. Further, it was shown that the accused, in entering his plea, properly understood
the consequences of his acts.
 BERNARDO U. MESINA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Bernardo Mesina worked as a Cashier of the City Treasurers Office, Caloocan City. Mesina
went to the Mini City Hall of Caloocan to collect from Ms. Baclit the Patubig fees due. However, Ms.
Baclit received several phone calls informing her that the Patubig collection was not remitted. Because of
this, they had a meeting regarding the unremitted collection but no one admitted to be at fault. Hence, the
Mayor, together with other involved officials, proceeded to the cashiers room where Mesina had his
vault. Mesinas vault was opened and a cash count was conducted and there they found the money. On his
defense, Mesina denied misappropriating, misapplying, and embezzling the patubig collection,
maintaining that the patubig collection was found complete in his vault during the inspection.
The RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public
Funds. The CA further affirmed the RTCs decision. Hence, this petition assailing that the CA failed to
give attention to the investigation conducted by the officials wherein it must be declared void since it was
not accorded with a counsel during such investigation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the investigation conducted must be void since the accused was not informed of
his constitutional right to assistance of counsel
HELD: No. The investigation conducted is valid. The safeguards during custodial investigation begin to
operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into a still unsolved crime, and the
interrogation is then focused on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the
police would then direct interrogatory questions that tend to elicit incriminating statement. In the case at
bar, the investigation was not custodial in nature. It was was still a general inquiry to ascertain the
whereabouts of the missing patubig collection. By its nature, the inquiry had to involve persons who had
direct supervision over the issue, including the City Treasurer, the City Auditor, the representative from
different concerned offices, and even the City Mayor. What was conducted was not an investigation that
already focused on the accused as the culprit but an administrative inquiry into the missing city funds.
Hence, it is still valid.
 REYNANTE TADEJA, ET. AL., vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: During the celebration of the annual fiesta of Barangay in Mindoro, Ruben Bernardo was
hacked to death by the brothers Tadeja. They were all charged and convicted of Homicide. They denied
the accusations and testified that a certain Plaridel was the killer and even accidentally hit Reynante while
trying to hack Ruben. Plaridel participated in the trial before the RTC and even gave testimony as to his
defense. However, after their conviction, Plaridel absconded. Later, the judgment of conviction became
final and executory. On appeal, the accused pray for the reopening of the case against them on the ground
that there is a newly discovered evidence through Plaridel Tadejas extrajudicial confession. However, it
was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court case should be re-opened on the ground of newly-discovered evidence

HELD: No. Public policy requires that there be an end to litigation. Section 1 of Rule 121 of the Rules of
Court provides that a new trial may only be granted by the court on motion of the accused, or motu
proprio with the consent of the accused at any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final. In this
case, petitioners judgment of conviction already became final and executor. Thus, a motion for new trial
may no longer be entertained.

Moreover, it is to be noted that newly discovered evidence refers to that which (a) is discovered
after trial; (b) could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence; (c) is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) is of
such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. In the case at bar, the confession of
Plaridel does not meet the requisites. It is clear that Plaridel participated in the trial before the RTC and
even gave testimony as to his defense. It was only after he and petitioners had been convicted by the trial
court that he absconded. Thus, the contention that his confession could not have been obtained during trial
was not given much credence.