Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    People Vs Fitzgerald

    Uploaded by

    WILHELMINA CUYUGAN
    The Supreme Court annulled the Court of Appeals' decision granting bail to the respondent Victor Keith Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had been convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals granted bail based on Fitzgerald's age and health claims, but the Supreme Court ruled that this was improper as illness is not a valid reason for bail under the rules. The evidence of Fitzgerald's guilt was strong, and there was an undue risk he may commit another crime if released, so bail should have been denied according to the circumstances listed in Section 5 of Rule 114. The Supreme Court ordered Fitzgerald's arrest and cancellation of his bail bond.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Fitzgerald

    Uploaded by

    WILHELMINA CUYUGAN
    39 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court annulled the Court of Appeals' decision granting bail to the respondent Victor Keith Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had been convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals granted bail based on Fitzgerald's age and health claims, but the Supreme Court ruled that this was improper as illness is not a valid reason for bail under the rules. The evidence of Fitzgerald's guilt was strong, and there was an undue risk he may commit another crime if released, so bail should have been denied according to the circumstances listed in Section 5 of Rule 114. The Supreme Court ordered Fitzgerald's arrest and cancellation of his bail bond.

    Original Description:

    FITZ CRIMPRO

    Original Title

    People vs Fitzgerald

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court annulled the Court of Appeals' decision granting bail to the respondent Victor Keith Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had been convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals granted bail based on Fitzgerald's age and health claims, but the Supreme Court ruled that this was improper as illness is not a valid reason for bail under the rules. The evidence of Fitzgerald's guilt was strong, and there was an undue risk he may commit another crime if released, so bail should have been denied according to the circumstances listed in Section 5 of Rule 114. The Supreme Court ordered Fitzgerald's arrest and cancellation of his bail bond.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Fitzgerald

    Uploaded by

    WILHELMINA CUYUGAN
    The Supreme Court annulled the Court of Appeals' decision granting bail to the respondent Victor Keith Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had been convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals granted bail based on Fitzgerald's age and health claims, but the Supreme Court ruled that this was improper as illness is not a valid reason for bail under the rules. The evidence of Fitzgerald's guilt was strong, and there was an undue risk he may commit another crime if released, so bail should have been denied according to the circumstances listed in Section 5 of Rule 114. The Supreme Court ordered Fitzgerald's arrest and cancellation of his bail bond.

    Copyright:

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

    869CRIMINAL

    RULE 114, Sec. 5 – Bail, When discretionary


    PROCEDURE
    G.R. No. 149723
    Date: October 27, 2006
    Title
    PEOPLE VS. FITZGERALD
    Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES – petitioner VICTOR KEITH FITZGERALD – respondent
    Nature of the case: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the August 31, 2001
    Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 20431 which granted the Motion for Bail2 of accused-
    appellant, herein respondent Victor Keith Fitzgerald
    FACTS
    1. An Information filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 75, Olongapo City charging Fitzgerald, an
    Australian citizen, with Violation of Art. III, Section 5, paragraph (a), subparagraph (5) of Republic Act (R.A.)
    No. 7610 alleging that sometime in the month of September 1993, in the City of Olongapo, Zambales, said
    accused VICTOR KEITH FITZGERALD induced complainant "AAA," a minor, 13 years of age, to engage in
    prostitution by then and there showering said "AAA" with gifts clothes and food and thereafter having carnal
    knowledge of her in violation of the aforesaid law.
    2. The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Fitzgerald applied for bail which the RTC denied
    on the basis that the circumstances of the accused indicate probability of flight and that there is undue risk
    (pedophilia) that the accused may commit a similar offense if released on bail pending appeal.
    3. Fitzgerald appealed to the CA but the appellate court affirmed the decision.
    4. Fitzgerald filed a Motion for New Trial and a Supplemental to Accused's Motion for New Trial on the ground
    that new and material evidence not previously available had surfaced. The CA granted the Motion for New
    Trial.
    5. The People (petitioner) filed a Motion for Reconsideration for the grant of the new trial wwhile Fitzgerald filed
    a Motion to Fix Bail with Manifestation. Both Motions were denied by the CA. With respect to the bail, they
    ruled pursuant to the provisions of Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court they cannot grant such motion
    because in the case at bar, the maximum imposable penalty in accordance with Republic Act 7610 is
    reclusion perpetua. And as it is, the evidence of guilt is strong. As to his alleged physical condition, let
    it be stressed that accused-appellant is not precluded from seeking medical attention if the need
    arises provided the necessary representations with the proper authorities are made.
    6. Later on Fitzgerald filed again a Motion to bail which the CA granted on August 31, 2000, ruling that though
    they maintained that the evidence of guilt is strong, taking a second look at appellant's plea for temporary
    liberty considering primarily the fact that he is already of old age and is not in the best of health, the CA
    granted the motion in the higher interest of substantial justice and considering the new trial granted in this
    case.
    7. Thereafter, the RTC ordered Fitzgerald's temporary release on September 4, 2001 upon his filing a cash
    bond in the amount of P100,000.00. Hence, this petition was filed.

    ISSUE/S
    WON the CA erred when it allowed respondent to bail
    RATIO
    The right to bail emanates from of the right to be presumed innocent. It is accorded to a person in the custody of the
    law who may, by reason of the presumption of innocence he enjoys, be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a
    security to guarantee his appearance before any court, as required under specified conditions. Implementing Sec.
    13,43 Article III of the 1987 Constitution, Sections 4 and 5, Rule 114 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure set forth
    substantive and procedural rules on the disposition of bail applications. Sec. 4 provides that bail is a matter of right to
    an accused person in custody for an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, but a
    matter of discretion on the part of the court, concerning one facing an accusation for an offense punishable by death,
    reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of his guilt is strong. As for an accused already convicted
    and sentenced to imprisonment term exceeding six years, bail may be denied or revoked based on prosecution
    evidence as to the existence of any of the circumstances under Sec. 5.

    In the case at bar, bail was not a matter of right but a mere privilege subject to the discretion of the CA to be
    exercised in accordance with the stringent requirements of Sec. 5, Rule 114. And Sec. 5 directs the denial or
    revocation of bail upon evidence of the existence of any of the circumstances enumerated therein such as those
    indicating probability of flight if released on bail or undue risk that the accused may commit another crime during the
    pendency of the appeal. It is bad enough that the CA granted bail on grounds other than those stated in the Motion
    filed by respondent; it is worse that it granted bail on the mere claim of the latter's illness. Bail is not a sick pass for
    an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of illness
    is not a ground for bail.
    RULING
    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the August 31, 2001 CA Resolution ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The
    bail bond posted by respondent is CANCELLED. Let an ORDER OF ARREST ISSUE against the person of the
    accused, Victor Keith Fitzgerald. No costs. SO ORDERED.

    Notes
    Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
    death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed
    and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original
    record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of
    the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate
    court.

    Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the
    pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

    If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or
    his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other
    similar circumstances:

    (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by
    the circumstance of reiteration;

    (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his
    bail without valid justification;

    (c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;

    (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or

    (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

    The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after
    notice to the adverse party in either case.
    2S SUMANQUI
    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_149723_2006.html

    You might also like