This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The respondent asserts that the August 1, 2002 and August 27, 2002 Orders of the trial court are null and void; hence, may be assailed by him before any warrant for his arrest is issued by the trial court. He insists that qualified theft is a bailable offense as gleaned from DOJ Department Circular No. 74, which was issued after the Court promulgated its decision in People v. Hernando,[24] and reiterated in People v. Panganiban.[25] While the said Circular is not binding on the courts, it nevertheless merits consideration, as it is, in a sense, an expression of policy of the Executive Branch (through the DOJ) in the enforcement of criminal laws. The respondent contends that the rulings of this Court in People v. Hernando and People v. Panganiban are also applicable, since like estafa, the penalty for theft is dependent on the value stolen or amount of the fraud. The petitioner's reliance on the ruling of this Court in People v. Bago is misplaced, since the Court in Bago did not categorically state therein that qualified theft is a non-bailable offense. | |||||