G.R. No. 196161 ; September 26, 2012
CYRIL CALPITO QUI, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cyril Calpito Qui was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for two counts of violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Informations alleged that in December 1999 and March 2000, she committed acts of cruelty and child abuse upon an 8-year-old minor by angrily shouting invectives, pointing her fingers, and threatening him, acts prejudicial to his psychological development. The RTC sentenced her to indeterminate penalties with maximum terms exceeding six years. After perfecting her appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), she filed an urgent application for bail pending appeal.
The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the bail application, arguing petitioner was a flight risk, citing her failure to attend several RTC hearings which resulted in the issuance of three warrants for her arrest. The CA denied the application in a Resolution dated December 17, 2010, specifically citing Section 5(d) of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows denial of bail if circumstances indicate a probability of flight. Her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner Cyril Calpito Qui’s application for bail pending appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s denial of bail pending appeal. The legal logic is anchored on Section 5, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs discretionary bail after conviction by the RTC for an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. While bail is discretionary in such cases, the rule mandates denial if the imposed penalty exceeds six years and the prosecution shows, with notice, the existence of specific bail-negating circumstances.
The Court emphasized the “tough on bail pending appeal” policy, where such circumstances are treated with gravity. One enumerated circumstance is a probability of flight under Section 5(d). The CA’s finding that petitioner was a flight risk was based on substantial evidence: her history of non-appearance at trial, which necessitated the issuance of multiple arrest warrants. This factual finding is accorded respect and conclusiveness. The Court ruled that the discretion to grant bail pending appeal must be exercised with grave caution, not laxity, as the applicant stands as a convicted accused. Since the penalty imposed exceeded six years and a bail-negating condition—the probability of flight—was duly established, the CA correctly exercised its discretion to deny bail. The constitutional presumption of innocence ceases upon final conviction, and a pending appeal does not automatically entitle one to bail.