Petition for Bail Trial

FacebookTumblrTwitterBlogger PostEmailGoogle GmailShare

Petition for Bail

All accused, except for Ramona Bautista, filed a Petition for Bail to ask the court for their temporary liberty since the prosecutor didn’t recommend any bail, in regards to the murder charge, for all of the accused.

It was ruled that, “As a general rule, a person in custody shall, before final conviction be entitled to bail as a matter of right.” 1 When evidence of guilt is strong, a person shall not be entitled to bail if charged with a capital offense or with an offense that under the law is punishable with reclusion perpetua at the time of its commission and at the at the time of the application for bail.

From the foregoing, it is clear that it is jurisprudentially settled that before conviction of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is NOT strong, ”bail becomes a matter of right”.

  • Supreme Court in Paras v. Baldado cites: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, honor or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws”.

    Herein accused has long been suffering from the deprivation of his freedom due to malicious and baseless accusations of the prosecution witnesses that can directly pinpoint the participation of the accused.

  • In People v. Gallarde G.R. 133025, February 2000, 325 SCRA 836, the supreme Court held that: “xxx (a) that by direct evidence, through an eye witness to the very commission of the act; and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with the victim immediately before or after the crime xxx”.

    No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved”.

  • In People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273, 283. The Supreme court held: The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In which case, the presumption prevails and the accused be necessarily acquitted.

Notes:

  1. People vs. Presiding Judge, RTC Muntinlupa City [Br. 276] 431 SCRA 391

Comments are closed.