GR 101127 31; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101127-31 August 7, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRESENCIA C. REYES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Cresencia C. Reyes was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, with three cases for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and two cases of estafa. After a joint trial, she was convicted. For the three Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 violations, she was sentenced to a total of two years imprisonment and a total fine of P96,290.00. For the two estafa cases: in Criminal Case No. 86-51209, she was sentenced to twenty-two years of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, to indemnify the complaining witness P80,540.00, and to pay costs; in Criminal Case No. 86-51210, she was given an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessory penalties, and ordered to indemnify the offended party P15,750.00 and pay costs. The cases were elevated to the Court of Appeals and then forwarded to the Supreme Court due to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Appellant remained on provisional liberty under a corporate surety bond posted by Oriental Assurance Corporation in the amount of P86,000.00, pursuant to a trial court order dated May 16, 1991. The issue referred en consulta to the Court En Banc is whether the accused-appellant, convicted of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to twenty-two years of reclusion perpetua, may be allowed to remain on bail during the pendency of her appeal.
ISSUE
Whether an accused convicted of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to twenty-two years of reclusion perpetua may be allowed to remain on bail pending appeal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court resolved that the accused-appellant should not be permitted to remain on bail. The Court applied the third rule from People vs. Ricardo C. Cortez, which states that when an accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, is out on bail, and after trial is convicted by the trial court of the offense charged, his bond shall be cancelled and he shall be placed in confinement pending resolution of his appeal. The Court held that the penalty of twenty-two years of reclusion perpetua imposed for estafa under Presidential Decree No. 818 falls within the constitutional and statutory rule making offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua non-bailable when evidence of guilt is strong. The Court reasoned that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty years and one day, and any penalty exceeding twenty years is within its range. Therefore, the Court ordered the bondsman to surrender the accused-appellant within ten days from notice to the trial court, and required the trial court to order the transmittal of the accused-appellant to the Bureau of Corrections upon surrender.