GR 114350; (January, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114350 . January 16, 1997.
JOSE T. OBOSA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose T. Obosa was charged with two counts of murder for the ambush-slaying of former Secretary Jaime N. Ferrer and his driver. The prosecution recommended no bail. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Obosa only of two counts of homicide, a non-capital offense. On the same day the decision was promulgated, Obosa manifested his intention to appeal and orally moved for bail. The trial court immediately granted bail. The following day, Obosa filed his written notice of appeal, perfecting his appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, upon motion by the Solicitor General, issued a Resolution cancelling Obosa’s bail bond and nullifying the trial court’s order granting bail. It ordered his arrest, reasoning that upon perfection of the appeal, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case, including the person of the accused. The appellate court denied Obosa’s motion for reconsideration. Obosa thus filed this petition, arguing he is entitled to bail as a matter of right after his conviction for a bailable offense.
ISSUE
Whether an accused convicted of a bailable offense (homicide) by the trial court is entitled to bail as a matter of right after perfecting his appeal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The right to bail under Section 13, Article III of the Constitution is available before conviction. After conviction by the trial court, bail is no longer a matter of right but of judicial discretion. The discretion to grant bail after conviction and pending appeal is reserved to the appellate court, not the trial court.
The trial court lost jurisdiction over the case upon Obosa’s perfection of his appeal. Jurisdiction over both the records and the person of the accused was transferred to the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the trial court’s order granting bail was issued without jurisdiction and is void. The proper procedure was for Obosa to file his application for bail with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court correctly exercised its discretion in this case, considering the trial court’s finding that treachery and other aggravating circumstances attended the killings—facts which, if considered, could have warranted a conviction for murder, a non-bailable offense. The grant of bail pending appeal requires a strong showing that the appeal poses a significant legal question or that circumstances exist justifying provisional liberty, which Obosa failed to establish.