CRIMPRO MOCK BAR QUESTION

Lando was convicted of homicide and sentenced to a penalty of 12 years

in prison. Lando appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and
applied for bail citing age and ill health and the absence of any
“bail-negating circumstances” under Section 5 Rule 114.

a. Enumerate the bail-negating circumstances (5%)

b. If Lando’s allegations are accurate, is he entitled to bail as a matter of
right? (5%)

Suggested Answers:

a.
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or under
conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.

b.
Lando is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. It is only
discretionary on the part of the appellate court. Rule 114 provides that
after conviction by the Regional Trial Court wherein a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years is imposed,
and not one of the circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar
circumstance is present and proved, bail is a matter of discretion. 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.
A finding that none of the bail-negating circumstances is not 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.