Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 468 views

    Paderanga Vs Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Mayumi Rellita
    Petitioner was belatedly charged as a co-conspirator in a 1984 multiple murder case. Before an arrest warrant could be served, petitioner filed a motion for bail which the trial court scheduled a hearing for. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel stated they were submitting custody of petitioner to the local Integrated Bar president. The prosecution did not oppose bail. The trial court then granted bail in the amount of P200,000. The issue was whether this constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held it did not, as petitioner could be considered in constructive custody after submitting to the court's jurisdiction, and accused are generally entitled to bail before conviction except in certain cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Paderanga Vs Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Mayumi Rellita
    468 views2 pages
    Petitioner was belatedly charged as a co-conspirator in a 1984 multiple murder case. Before an arrest warrant could be served, petitioner filed a motion for bail which the trial court scheduled a hearing for. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel stated they were submitting custody of petitioner to the local Integrated Bar president. The prosecution did not oppose bail. The trial court then granted bail in the amount of P200,000. The issue was whether this constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held it did not, as petitioner could be considered in constructive custody after submitting to the court's jurisdiction, and accused are generally entitled to bail before conviction except in certain cases.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Paderanga vs Drilon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner was belatedly charged as a co-conspirator in a 1984 multiple murder case. Before an arrest warrant could be served, petitioner filed a motion for bail which the trial court scheduled a hearing for. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel stated they were submitting custody of petitioner to the local Integrated Bar president. The prosecution did not oppose bail. The trial court then granted bail in the amount of P200,000. The issue was whether this constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held it did not, as petitioner could be considered in constructive custody after submitting to the court's jurisdiction, and accused are generally entitled to bail before conviction except in certain cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    468 views2 pages

    Paderanga Vs Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Mayumi Rellita
    Petitioner was belatedly charged as a co-conspirator in a 1984 multiple murder case. Before an arrest warrant could be served, petitioner filed a motion for bail which the trial court scheduled a hearing for. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel stated they were submitting custody of petitioner to the local Integrated Bar president. The prosecution did not oppose bail. The trial court then granted bail in the amount of P200,000. The issue was whether this constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held it did not, as petitioner could be considered in constructive custody after submitting to the court's jurisdiction, and accused are generally entitled to bail before conviction except in certain cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Paderanga v.

    Drilon, 247 SCRA 741 (1995)


    FACTS
    Petitioner was belatedly charged in an amended information as a co-conspirator in the crime of multiple
    murder in the Regional Trial Court for the killing of members of the Bucag family sometime in 1984 in
    Gingoog City of which petitioner was the mayor at the time.
    The trial of the base was all set to start with the issuance of an arrest warrant for petitioner’s apprehension
    but, before it could be served on him, petitioner through counsel, a motion for admission to bail with the
    trial court which set the same for hearing.
    As petitioner was then confined at the Cagayan Capitol College General Hospital, his counsel manifested
    that they were submitting custody over the person of their client to the local chapter president of the
    integrated Bar of the Philippines and that, for purposes of said hearing of his bail application, he
    considered being in the custody of the law.
    The prosecution was neither supporting nor opposing the application for bail and that they were
    submitting the same to the sound discretion of the trail judge
    Upon further inquiries from the trial court, Prosecutor Abejo announced that he was waiving any further
    presentation of evidence. On that note and in a resolution, the trial court admitted petitioner to bail in the
    amount of P200,000.00
    ISSUE
    Whether or not the grant of bail was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
    HELD
    No, the grant of bail was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
    As a paramount requisite, only those persons who have either been arrested, detained, or otherwise
    deprived of their freedom will ever have occasion to seek the protective mantle extended by the right to
    bail.
    A person is considered to be in the custody of the law (a) when he is arrested either by virtue of a warrant
    of arrest issued or by warrantless arrest or (b) when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the
    jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
    In the case of herein petitioner, it may be conceded that he had indeed filed his motion for admission to
    bail before he was actually and physically placed under arrest. He may, however, at that point and in the
    factual ambience therefore, be considered as being constructively and legally under custody.
    Through his lawyers, he expressly submitted to physical and legal control over his person.
    Thus in the likewise peculiar circumstance which attended the filing of his bail application with the trail
    court, for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily submitted his person to
    the custody of the law and, necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court which thereafter granted bail
    as prayed for. In fact, an arrest is made either by actual restraint of the arrestee or merely by his
    submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. 19 The latter mode may be exemplified by the
    so-called “house arrest” or, in case of military offenders, by being “confined to quarters” or restricted to
    the military camp area
    The general rule is that prior to conviction by the regional trial court of a criminal offense, an accused is
    entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, the present exceptions thereto being the instances where
    the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
    imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. Under said general rule, upon proper application for
    admission to bail, the court having custody of the accused should, as a matter of course, grant the same
    after a hearing conducted to specifically determine the conditions of the bail in accordance with Section 6
    (now, Section 2) of Rule 114. On the other hand, as the grant of bail becomes a matter of judicial
    discretion on the part of the court under the exceptions to the rule, a hearing, mandatory in nature and
    which should be summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court is required with the participation of
    both the defense and a duly notified representative of the prosecution, this time to ascertain whether or
    not the evidence of guilt is strong for the provisional liberty of the applicant. Of course, the burden of
    proof is on the prosecution to show that the evidence meets the required quantum.

    You might also like