Facts:
Petitioner Francisco Yap was convicted of the crime of estafa for misappropriating amounts equivalent to P5,5 Million. After the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of Appeals, he filed a motion to fix bail pending appeal. The CA granted the motion and allowed Yap to post bail in the amount of P5,5 Milion on condition that he will secure “a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be so until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court and private complainant.” He sought the reduction of the bail but it was denied. Hence, he appealed to the SC. He contended that the CA, by setting bail at a prohibitory amount, effectively denied him his right to bail. He also contested the condition imposed by the CA that he secure a certification/guaranty, claiming that the same violates his liberty of abode and travel.
Petitioner Francisco Yap was convicted of the crime of estafa for misappropriating amounts equivalent to P5,5 Million. After the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of Appeals, he filed a motion to fix bail pending appeal. The CA granted the motion and allowed Yap to post bail in the amount of P5,5 Milion on condition that he will secure “a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be so until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court and private complainant.” He sought the reduction of the bail but it was denied. Hence, he appealed to the SC. He contended that the CA, by setting bail at a prohibitory amount, effectively denied him his right to bail. He also contested the condition imposed by the CA that he secure a certification/guaranty, claiming that the same violates his liberty of abode and travel.
Issues:
1. Whether the proposed bail of P5,500,000.00 was violative of petitioner's right against excessive bail.
2. Whether the condition imposed by the CA violative of the liberty of abode and right to travel.
2. Whether the condition imposed by the CA violative of the liberty of abode and right to travel.
Held:
1. Right to Bail
The setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioner’s right to bail. The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the court. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,500,000.00) is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of; this we cannot allow because bail is not intended as a punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court.
The setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioner’s right to bail. The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the court. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,500,000.00) is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of; this we cannot allow because bail is not intended as a punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court.
2. Liberty of abode and right to travel
The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by petitioner, are not absolute rights. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
The order of the Court of Appeals releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above provision. The condition imposed by the Court of Appeals is simply consistent with the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence. Besides, a closer look at the questioned condition will show that petitioner is not prevented from changing abode; he is merely required to inform the court in case he does so. (Yap vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001)
0 Comments
Post a Comment