Tinanong ko ang daughter re non-bailable offenses. Wala daw ganun. Ganito ang explanation niya. There are certain crimes na bailable. When you say bailable, it means is the right of the accused to post bail. Pero kung malala yun crime, nasa discretion na ng judge kung bailable or not, meaning, you have no right to bail if the judge deems it necessary.
Let's wait our resident lawyers kung tama ang analysis ng daughter ko.
Meron talagang official legal term na "non-bailable" offenses. Here's an example from the Rules of Court:
SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary.—Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. (Rule 114) Pero may punto naman si daughter, in the sense na lahat ng offenses puwedeng magkaroon ng bail.
E bakit ang labo yata? Merong non-bailable, pero lahat pala bailable? Ganito kasi yon:
Prior to conviction, bail is a matter of discretion where the maximum imposable penalty for the offense charged is reclusion perpetua or higher. Otherwise, bail is a matter of right.
Ano yung "matter of right"? --- bail must always be granted.
Ano yung "matter of discretion"? --- bail should be denied if evidence of guilt is strong; but bail shoud be granted if evidence of guilt is not strong. It means may discretion daw yung judge to grant bail, since he also has the discretion to determine whether or not evidence of guilt is strong
Here's the applciable provision in the Rules of Court:
SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (Rule 114) =======================================
I thought illegal detention is not bailable?
Yes, pero "non-bailable" means no bail only if the evidence of guilt is strong. Conversely, if the evidence of guilt is not strong, puwede pa rin ang bail.
Therefore, ang lumalabas (sa tingin ko lang), the defense previoulsy filed a motion to grant bail, on the ground that the evidence of guilt is not strong. After hearings, the judge was convinced that evidence of guilt is not strong, and bail was granted.
Next step, the prosecution should file a motion for reconsideration of the order granting bail, and insist that evidence of guilt is strong.
In practice, malabong magkaroon ng bail ang non-bailable offenses. But still, trial lawyers for the defense always file a motion to grant bail, kahit alam nila na unlikely na ma-grant ang bail. Ipipilit pa rin niyan na evidence of guilt is not strong daw. Maybe 90% of the time, motion to grant bail is denied. Kaya nagulat ako nang nagkaroon ng order granting bail, for 3 of the accused pa, ha.
=======================================
Hindi pa rin alam ni Tony Calvento ang details:
Tony Calvento 7 hours ago We're still trying to get a copy of the full decision of Judge Paz Esperanza Cortes.
From initial and still sketchy reports, the Judge ruled that the evidence of the prosecution, Atty Malonga et al is weak to indict them for Serious Illegal Detention.
Will let you guys know the details.https://www.facebook.com/tonycalvento
