Case Digest:

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; orthat 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.