The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment. Ergo, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the special civil action for certiorari, which questioned the RTC’s grant of bail to respondent, for having been filed in the name of the offended parties and without the OSG’s intervention.
the question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment.
While in Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 385 Phil. 208 (2000), the Supreme Court allowed the offended party to challenge before it the trial court's order granting bail. Nonetheless, in that case, the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG would "leave the private complainant without any recourse to rectify the public injustice." (People v. Calo, G.R. No. 88531, June 18, 1990, 186 SCRA 620, 624).
On the contrary, the Supreme Court in Burgos vs. Court of Appeals, emphatically stated that since respondent Co has already been arraigned, the trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence.
This is true because the trial court took time to hear the parade of witnesses that the prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. Ergo, the CA correctly dismissed the special civil action of certiorari, which questioned the RTC’s grant of bail to respondent Co, for having been filed in the name of the offended parties and without the OSG’s intervention (BURGOS vs. CA, G.R. No. 169711, February 08, 2010, ABAD, J.).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.