Leviste v. Court of Appeals

Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the RTC of Makati City of the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to 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 to the Court of Appeals and applied for bail pending appeal, citing his advanced age and health and denying any risk of flight. The CA denied the application, holding that bail is not a "sick pass" for an ailing or aged detainee and that he had not shown an ailment so grave that confinement would permanently impair his health. It also made a preliminary evaluation of the case and found no reason substantial enough to overturn the evidence of his guilt. His motion for reconsideration was denied. In a Rule 65 petition, Leviste argued that where the penalty exceeds six years and none of the circumstances listed in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is shown, bail must be granted.

1. 1Whether, for an appellant sentenced to more than six years' imprisonment, bail pending appeal must be granted if none of the circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present.
2. 2Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying bail.

The petition was dismissed. Procedurally, the CA had jurisdiction, since bail is discretionary after an RTC conviction for an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and where the conviction changed the offense from non-bailable to bailable the application is lodged with the appellate court. Petitioner showed no caprice or arbitrariness, only alleged errors of judgment that certiorari does not correct. On the merits, the third paragraph of Section 5 covers two scenarios. Where none of the bail-negating circumstances is present, bail is a matter of sound discretion: the court may grant or deny it after considering all relevant circumstances, including whether the appeal raises a substantial question and is not merely for delay. Where any circumstance is present, the court exercises "stringent discretion," and upon finding it, "has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal." The listed circumstances are not exclusive, since the Rule speaks of "the following or other similar circumstances." Petitioner's reading would also absurdly make bail more accessible to those convicted of graver offenses than to those sentenced to six years or less. The history of the rules shows a "tough on bail pending appeal" orientation. After conviction the presumption of innocence ends and, with it, the constitutional right to bail, so discretion "must be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons." The CA was directed to decide the appeal with dispatch.