ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 167710. October 25, 2006]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVEN DE GRANO, ARMANDO DE GRANO, DOMINGO LANDICHO AND ESTANISLAO LACABA, et. al.

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 25, 2006 .

G.R. No. 167710 (People of the Philippines v. Joven de Grano, Armando de Grano, Domingo Landicho and Estanislao Lacaba, et. al.)

This refers to the Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Appeal and/or To Fix Bail dated March 29, 2006, filed by herein respondent Estanislao Lacaba, alleging the following:

1.������ What is merely pending before this Honorable Supreme Court is an issue of bail when this case was still being tried in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila;

2.������ The latest incident involving accused before the Honorable Court of Appeals is that others were acquitted from the crime of murder while the herein-movant Estanislao Lacaba was one of those whose case was downgraded into homicide;

3.������ Only herein movant is in jail. He does not know the whereabouts or circumstances of the others;

4.������ Initially, or on March 15, 2005, the Honorable Court of Appeals denied the petition for bail filed by the accused; but on January 12, 2006, the said Court resolved to set aside and expunge from the records said resolution of March 15, 2005; thus, giving way for herein accused to post bail;

5.������ Herein accused Estanislao Lacaba immediately filed his Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Fix Bail; but the said court opined that it could not act to fix the amount of bail for herein movant as another issue/s is(/are) still pending before this Honorable Supreme Court. x x x

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, that the matter of appeal on the issue of bail which seems pending before this Honorable Supreme Court be considered as withdrawn insofar as movant Estanislao Lacaba is concerned and/or that, the amount of bail be fixed by this Honorable Supreme Court for the temporary liberty of accused Estanislao Lacaba which he prays to be at P10,000.00. [1] cralaw

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was required to comment on the aforesaid motion.

In its Comment [2] cralaw dated August 31, 2006, the OSG submitted that the instant petition for review on certiorari seeks a review of the Resolutions dated January 25, 2005 and April 5, 2005 of the Court of Appeals on pure question of law. Nowhere does it appear from the records that herein respondent Lacaba ever filed a motion or application for bail, which he claims to be the only issue pending before the Court. His appeal dated April 6, 2006 (in CA-G.R. CR No. 28985) or his Comment dated September 24, 2005 (in G.R. No. 167710) do not make any reference to a Motion for Bail purportedly filed before the Court. The OSG prays that the Ex-Parte Motion dated March 29, 2006 be denied.

The Comment of the OSG is well-taken.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the People, through the OSG, assails the Resolution [3] cralaw of the Court of Appeals dismissing its Petition for Certiorari on the following grounds: (1) double jeopardy; (2) the petition was not filed by the OSG nor in the name of the offended party; (3) the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was not signed by the offended party but by her private counsel; and (4) no showing of any subsequent participation of the OSG. The petition for certiorari filed before the CA assails the Regional Trial Court's Order [4] cralaw dated April 15, 2004, acquitting herein respondents Joven de Grano and Armando de Grano for murder, and downgrading the conviction of Domingo Landicho and Estanislao Lacaba from murder to homicide.

As it appears, respondent Lacaba filed the Motion for Bail on the main ground that his conviction has been downgraded by the trial court from a non-bailable to a bailable offense. In such a case, the application for bail can only be filed with, and resolved by, the appellate court; and the granting of the application is merely discretionary upon the court. [5] cralaw The motion for bail and/or motion to withdraw the appeal is not proper in the instant petition considering that the resolution of the same is limited only to the aforestated question of law.

ACCORDINGLY, the Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Appeal and/or To Fix Bail dated March 29, 2006 is DENIED.

The Court further resolves to NOTE:

(a) the transmittal of Court of Appeals rollo consisting of 476 pages, by Teresa P. Gajo, Chief, Special Cases Section, Court of Appeals; and

(b) the letter dated September 13, 2006 of Atty. Chelly P. Balasbas, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila, informing the Court that the entire records of this case including documentary and testimonial evidence were already forwarded to the Court of Appeals on December 16, 2004.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Firs Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 142-143.

[2] cralaw Id. at 162-166.

[3] cralaw Penned by Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina Arevalo Zenarosa, concurring; rollo, pp. 61-63.

[4] cralaw Issued by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 93-129988.

[5] cralaw Rule 114, Section 5, 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.


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