Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Qui v. People

    Uploaded by

    Junmer Ortiz
    The petitioner was convicted of two counts of violating the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and sentenced to two equal periods of imprisonment. She applied for bail pending appeal, which the Court of Appeals denied based on her being a flight risk, having failed to attend several hearings resulting in three arrest warrants. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' denial of bail, finding that the appellate court did not abuse its discretion given the circumstances provided under the Rules of Criminal Procedure for denying bail for convicted individuals sentenced to over six years imprisonment, one of which is being a flight risk.

    Copyright:

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

    Qui v. People

    Uploaded by

    Junmer Ortiz
    18 views1 page
    The petitioner was convicted of two counts of violating the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and sentenced to two equal periods of imprisonment. She applied for bail pending appeal, which the Court of Appeals denied based on her being a flight risk, having failed to attend several hearings resulting in three arrest warrants. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' denial of bail, finding that the appellate court did not abuse its discretion given the circumstances provided under the Rules of Criminal Procedure for denying bail for convicted individuals sentenced to over six years imprisonment, one of which is being a flight risk.

    Original Title

    20. Qui v. People

    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 petitioner was convicted of two counts of violating the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and sentenced to two equal periods of imprisonment. She applied for bail pending appeal, which the Court of Appeals denied based on her being a flight risk, having failed to attend several hearings resulting in three arrest warrants. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' denial of bail, finding that the appellate court did not abuse its discretion given the circumstances provided under the Rules of Criminal Procedure for denying bail for convicted individuals sentenced to over six years imprisonment, one of which is being a flight risk.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views1 page

    Qui v. People

    Uploaded by

    Junmer Ortiz
    The petitioner was convicted of two counts of violating the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and sentenced to two equal periods of imprisonment. She applied for bail pending appeal, which the Court of Appeals denied based on her being a flight risk, having failed to attend several hearings resulting in three arrest warrants. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' denial of bail, finding that the appellate court did not abuse its discretion given the circumstances provided under the Rules of Criminal Procedure for denying bail for convicted individuals sentenced to over six years imprisonment, one of which is being a flight risk.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    20. Qui v. People; GR No.

    196161 (2012)

    Facts: Petitioner was charged with two counts of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 or the
    Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The RTC of
    Quezon City convicted petitioner as charged, and sentenced  her to two equal periods of imprisonment
    for an indeterminate penalty. Petitioner subsequently filed her Notice of Appeal. With the perfection of
    her appeal and the consequent elevation of the case records to the CA, petitioner posthaste filed before
    the appellate court an Urgent Petition/Application for Bail Pending Appeal which respondent People of
    the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed.
    The OSG urged for the denial of the bail application on the ground of petitioner’s propensity to evade
    the law and that she is a flight-risk, as she in fact failed to attend several hearings before the RTC
    resulting in the issuance of three warrants for her arrest.
    The CA issued the first assailed Resolution denying petitioner’s application for bail pending appeal on
    the basis of Sec. 5(d) of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    Issue: Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the petitioner’s
    application for bail pending appeal on the ground that the latter is a flight risk.

    Ruling: No. The Court finds the CA to have exercised its discretion soundly when it denied petitioner's
    application for bail pending appeal. Petitioner’s argument that she has the constitutional right to bail
    and that the evidence of guilt against her is not strong is spurious. Certainly, after one is convicted by
    the trial court, the presumption of innocence, and with it, the constitutional right to bail, ends.
    Consequently, the Court agrees with the appellate court’s finding of the presence of the fourth
    circumstance enumerated in the above-quoted Sec. 5 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
    and holds that the appellate court neither erred nor gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s
    application for bail pending appeal. The appellate court appeared to have been guided by the
    circumstances provided under the Rules. As the Court categorically held in People v. Fitzgerald, "As for
    an accused already convicted and sentenced to an 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, paragraphs (a) to (e) x x x."
    Evidently, the circumstances succinctly provided in Sec. 5 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal
    Procedure have been placed as a guide for the exercise of the appellate court's discretion in granting or
    denying the application for bail, pending the appeal of an accused who has been convicted of a crime
    where the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years.

    You might also like