This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As a result, all criminal cases within the competence of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court are bailable as matter of right because these courts have no jurisdiction to try capital offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Likewise, bail is a matter of right prior to conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for any offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or even prior to conviction for an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong.[28] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The ruling in Moncupa vs. Enrile[116] that habeas corpus will lie where the deprivation of liberty which was initially valid has become arbitrary in view of subsequent developments finds no application in the present case because the hearing on petitioner's application for bail has yet to commence. As stated earlier, the delay in the hearing of petitioner's petition for bail cannot be pinned solely on the Sandiganbayan or on the prosecution for that matter. Petitioner himself is partly to be blamed. Moreover, a petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting one's right to bail.[117] It cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail,[118] or has not even exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the court where the criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed. | |||||