phBar.org (Bar Exams Forum-Philippines)

VII.



My trial answer.

JC is entitled to bail. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the guilt is strong shall not be admitted to bail. In the instant case, it was not shown that guilt of JC is strong. In case of doubt whether the accused' guilt is strong or not, his right to bail should be upheld.



My Trial answer.

Yes, the prosecution may appeal from the decision of acquittal rendered by the RTC.

Again, under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, any party may appeal from the judgment or final order of a criminal court, except when the accused will be placed in double jeopardy.

In the instant case, JC will not be placed in double jeopardy because he had no valid plea. One of the requisites to constitute double jeopardy is that there must be a valid plea. The fact that he was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances and he testified for an incomplete self-defense and for a voluntary surrender to the authorities has the effect of vacating his plea of guilt. Therefore, there was actually no standing plea for JC. As a consequence, JC cannot invoke double when the prosecution appeal from his judgment of acquittal.

i have the same answer in b) since it was an improvident plea.

however, in a) i answered that JC was not entitled to bail. in Comendador v. de villa (200 SCRA 80), it was held that traditionally, the right to bail has not been recognized & is not available to the military as an exception to the bill of rights. this was much suggested in Arula v. Espino (28 SCRA 540), where the court observed that the right to speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist. the denial of the right to bail does not violate the equal protection clause because there is substantial distinction between the military and civilians.

I think Commendador applies only to court martial case? Am I right?

Thanks for this update. Just learned of this exception here.

don't take my answer as accurate ferdz. at that time, it was my 'best guess' in answering the question. sir lito is right. comendador case i think involves not only coup de etat but also court martial proceedings. i just followed the doctrine in comendador kse in that case, the SC did not categorically state that this rule apply only in the military tribunal. the SC made no mention in the case whether denial of the right to bail applies only in military tribunal and not in the civil court. until the suggested answers are released, i don't know if i'm right - whether the comendador doctrine applies in JC's case. here's the date of comendador v. de villa G.R. No. 93177 August 2, 1991. you can check whether comendador applies in JC's case. i just hope the examiner would consider my answer. God bless to all barristers

Yes, thanks, that's why I also quoted Sir Lito's comment on Commendador case.

Barristers ka pala. Good luck, dude!

We'll include you to our intentions in our vigil prayer at the school.

Pareho tayo ng sagot sa A Mr. ponente and this case was discussed by Justice Nachura during one of his lectures as well as in his book (poli reviewer). Traditionally nga daw members of the AFP are not entitled to bail. However mayroong addition yung answer ko sa A. Considering that in the above cited problem JC is being prosecuted for murder punishable with reclusion perpetua absent any showing that the evidence of guilt is not strong, then JC is not entitled to bail. Assuming arguendo that the fact of him being a member of the AFP will not be considered he is still not entitled to bail.


With regard to letter B, I beg to disagree with Ferdz and Ponente. The fact that JC introduced evidence establishing self defense does not make his plea of guilty invalid. In such a case his plea of guilty will be vacated and a plea of not guilty will be entered in his favor. This will not prevent the court from rendering a valid judgment based on the pieces of evidence presented. Therefore all the elements of double jeopardy are present in the instant case. Hence the prosecution cannot appeal the decision of acquittal without violating the right of JC against double jeopardy.

[quote="ponente"]i have the same answer in b) since it was an improvident plea.

however, in a) i answered that JC was not entitled to bail. in Comendador v. de villa (200 SCRA 80), it was held that traditionally, the right to bail has not been recognized & is not available to the military as an exception to the bill of rights. this was much suggested in Arula v. Espino (28 SCRA 540), where the court observed that the right to speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist. the denial of the right to bail does not violate the equal protection clause because there is substantial distinction between the military and civilians.[/quote]

that only applies to court martial cases

JC is not entitled to bail. He is charged with an offense punishable either by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.



There is no double jeopardy. The court was incorrect in acquitting JC. Since he was charged with a non capital offense and to which he pleaded guilty, the court should have merely proceeded to determine the imposable penalty. Hence, by not doing so, the court acted without jurisdiction in exonerating JC.

Hello Guys:

From what I remembered, my answer in "b" is that there will be no double jeopardy, and as to the plea of guilty, there was a valid plea on the following reasons:

1) That it would be unfair to to the accused, just because he proved self-defense and the court rendered a decision acquiting him, his initial plea of guilty will be taken agaisnt him and be considered as not a valid plea;

2) That the court has already decided the case based on the evidence presented;

3) That under rule 116 Sec 5, "the court may permit an imporvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty", it can be said that by the use "may", it is upon the courts discretion;

4) That for bar purposes, since it is a poli law qustion, it is proper only to cite answers which would be under the consti, and not in the rules of court.

this is only an opinion.... have a great day everybody.

A.) it depends on whether or not the evidence of his guilt is strong. Since murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of the courts. That discretion lies in the determination by the courts of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

a. yes he is entitled to bail.

He is entitled to bail as a matter of discretion, however if the evidence of guilt is strong then bail will not be allowed.

b. yes there will be double joepardy.

b.) People vs. Balisacan(17 SCRA 1120)Ferdz got it right!!!!!!!!!!