Petitioner: JOSE ANTONIO LEVISTE

Respondent: THE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 189122 March 17, 2010

DOCTRINE
Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. On the other hand, upon conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail
becomes a matter of discretion

FACTS
Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by
the RTC of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer 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 CA. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application for admission to bail, citing his
advanced age and health condition, and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part.
CA denied invoking the bedrock principle in the matter of bail pending appeal, that the discretion to extend
bail during the course of appeal should be exercised "with grave caution and only for strong reasons." Bail
is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner now questions as grave abuse of discretion the denial of his application for bail,
considering that none of the conditions justifying denial of bail under the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court was present. Petitioners theory is that, where the penalty imposed by the trial
court is more than six years but not more than 20 years and the circumstances mentioned in the third
paragraph of Section 5 are absent, bail must be granted to an appellant pending appeal.

ISSUE
In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant sentenced by the trial court to a penalty
of imprisonment for more than six years, does the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal
mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court?

RULING
NO. Absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114
means that a less stringent approach in granting bail only subject to the discretion of the court to grant bail.
Under Rule 114, the availability of bail to an accused may be summarized in the following rules:

e. 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

f. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court imposing a penalty of imprisonment

exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years, and any of the circumstances stated in Sec.
5 or any other similar circumstance is present and proved, no bail shall be granted by
said court
 The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on
the appellant applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years. The first scenario deals with the
circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph (namely, recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habitual
delinquency or commission of the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; previous escape
from legal confinement, evasion of sentence or violation of the conditions of his bail without a valid
justification; commission of the offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon; circumstances
indicating the probability of flight if released on bail; undue risk of committing another crime during the
pendency of the appeal; or other similar circumstances) not present. The second scenario contemplates
the existence of at least one of the said circumstances.

In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, 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. In other words, the appellate courts denial of bail pending appeal where
none of the said circumstances exists does not, by and of itself, constitute abuse of discretion.

On the other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion,
that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines,
it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Conversely, if the appellate court grants
bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion will thereby be committed.

On the other hand, if the appellants case falls within the second scenario, the appellate courts
stringent discretion requires that the exercise thereof be primarily focused on the determination of the proof
of the presence of any of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance of bail. This is so because
the existence of any of those circumstances is by itself sufficient to deny or revoke bail. Nonetheless, a
finding that none of the said circumstances is 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.

DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED.