ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 157147. September 10, 2003]

PEOPLE vs. CAWALING

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 10 2003.

G.R. No. 157147(People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Cawaling.)

This refers to the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed by appellant Wilfredo Cawaling ("appellant") from this Court's Resolution dated 28 April 2003.

From the records, it appears that appellant was charged with the crime of Murder. The Regional Trial Court, Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82 ("RTC-Branch 82") rendered judgment [1] cralaw finding appellant guilty as an accomplice in the crime of homicide and sentencing him to an "indeterminate penalty of prision correccional as minimum to prision mayor as maximum" or "from 4 years and 2 months to 8 years and 1 day with all its accessory penalties." Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23912 which rendered a decision [2] cralaw finding appellant guilty of the crime of murder and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals further ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case to this Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124.

On 26 March 2003, this Court issued a Resolution directing appellant to file a brief if he so desires.

Considering that appellant, who was convicted by the Court of Appeals of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, is still out on bail, the Court issued a Resolution on 28 April 2003 which is the subject of the instant motion for reconsideration.

The assailed Resolution of 28 April 2003 directed the presiding judge of RTC-Branch 82 to order the bondsmen/sureties of appellant to surrender the latter and immediately inform this Court of the fact of surrender. If appellant does not surrender, his bond shall be forfeited and an order for his arrest shall be issued and his appeal shall be dismissed. This Court further directed the transfer of appellant to the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.

In his Motion for Reconsideration, appellant contends that the Court of Appeals disregarded the findings and assessment of the trial court on the matter of credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. He argues that there is now an apparent conflict between the findings of the trial court and that of the Court of Appeals on his alleged participation in the commission of the crime. He further avers that "no prejudice can also be had on the people if bail is maintained, since the accused can immediately be arrested, if conviction is sustained" by this Court. He argues that the records will show that he had faced his accuser and never went into hiding and in fact, he was jailed for more than 4 years while the case was heard below. He therefore prays that he be allowed to maintain his bail bond while the case is being deliberated by this Court.

When asked to comment, the Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG") stated that appellant was allowed to post bail because he was convicted by the trial court merely as an accomplice in the crime of homicide, an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. The OSG, however, argues that appellant is no longer entitled to bail since the Court of Appeals had "convicted appellant of a capital offense." Thus, the OSG prays that appellant's motion for reconsideration be denied.

We agree with the OSG.

Section 7, Rule 114 is explicit. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. Stated otherwise, when the accused is charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied, as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion. [3] cralaw

Appellant was charged with the crime of murder which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. [4] cralaw Although the court a quo found him guilty of a lesser offense, i.e., as an accomplice in the crime of homicide, appellant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals, which found him guilty of the crime of murder. An appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case wide open for review and the appellate court can correct errors, though unassigned, that may be found in the appealed judgment. [5] cralaw This includes the penalty which may be increased. [6] cralaw The entire case is submitted for review and even factual questions may again be weighed and evaluated. There is the possibility that appellant may be convicted upon the original charge. As held in Obosa v. Court of Appeals: [7] cralaw

xxx Thus, on appeal, as the entire case is submitted for review, even factual questions may once more be weighed and evaluated. That being the situation, the possibility of conviction upon the original charge is ever present. Likewise, if the prosecution had previously demonstrated that evidence of the accused's guilt is strong, as it had done so in this case, such determination subsists even on appeal, despite conviction for a lesser offense, since such determination is for the purpose of resolving whether to grant or deny bail and does not have any bearing on whether petitioner will ultimately be acquitted or convicted of the charge.

In the En Banc Resolution of 15 October 1991 in People v. Ricardo Cortez , [8] cralaw the Court ruled that an accused, who is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, is no longer entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he appeals the case, to this Court since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt is strong.

The clear implication, therefore, is that if an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted and sentenced to suffer such penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. The court would not have only determined that the evidence of guilt is strong, it would have likewise ruled that the accused's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, bail must not be granted during the pendency of the appeal from the judgment of conviction. [9] cralaw

WHEREFORE, appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

The brief of the Solicitor General is NOTED.

Within twenty (20) days from notice hereof, the accused-appellant may file a REPLY BRIEF traversing matters raised in the Solicitor General's brief but not covered in the brief of the accused-appellant.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Penned by Judge Francisco F. Fanlo, Jr.

[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, with Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Josefina Guevara-Salonga, concurring.

[3] cralaw Padilla v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 121917, 31 July 1996, 260 SCRA 155.

[4] cralaw Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

[5] cralaw People v. Feliciano, 418 Phil. 88 (2001); People v. Ferrer, 415 Phil. 188 (2001).

[6] cralaw Quemuel v. Court of Appeals, 130 Phil. 33 (1968).

[7] cralaw G.R. No. 114350, 16 January 1997, 266 SCRA 281.

[8] cralaw G.R. No. 92560, also cited in Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 121917, 31 July 1996, 260 SCRA 155; People v. Nitcha, 310 Phil. 287 (1995) and People v. Fortes, G.R. No. 90643, 25 June 1993, 223 SCRA 619.

[9] cralaw Padilla v. Court of Appeals, People v. Nitcha and People v. Fortes, supra, note 8.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com