GR L 1989; (May, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1989; May 23, 1949
JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Reyes y Ramirez was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila of theft and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor, ordered to return the stolen radio or pay its value of P140, and to pay costs. He appealed and requested the court to set a bail of P1,200 for his provisional liberty pending appeal, which was denied. Upon elevation of the records to the Court of Appeals, he filed a motion for provisional liberty under the same bail, which was also denied. Reyes then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, alleging that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in denying his request for bail pending appeal. The Solicitor General opposed, arguing that Reyes was caught in flagrante delicto, had a notorious criminal record with twelve criminal cases filed against him (five committed while on provisional liberty after the cases had been instituted), and that his appeal was not taken in good faith.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for provisional liberty under bail pending appeal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The constitutional right to bail before conviction is not absolute after conviction by a Court of First Instance. Under Rule 110, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, after conviction by a Court of First Instance, the grant of bail pending appeal is discretionary with the court. Discretion means the faculty conferred by law upon public officials to act officially under certain circumstances according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience. The Court found no abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals, as its denial was based on valid grounds: petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto, had a notorious criminal record including offenses committed while on bail, and his appeal appeared not to be taken in good faith. The Supreme Court will not interfere with the sound discretion of lower courts unless exercised capriciously or with grave abuse. The petition was denied with costs.
AI Generated by Armztrong.