Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 482 views

    Chua Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Eva Trinidad
    The respondent was convicted of estafa by the regional trial court but failed to appear at multiple court dates. The trial court cancelled the respondent's bail and issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to surrender within five days. The respondent appealed to the court of appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against implementing the bail cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion by issuing the injunction, as the proper remedy was a regular appeal and the respondent had no right to be protected given his conviction for a crime with a penalty over six years and failure to appear in court. The Supreme Court set aside the court of appeals' rulings and affirmed the trial court's cancellation of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chua Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Eva Trinidad
    482 views4 pages
    The respondent was convicted of estafa by the regional trial court but failed to appear at multiple court dates. The trial court cancelled the respondent's bail and issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to surrender within five days. The respondent appealed to the court of appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against implementing the bail cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion by issuing the injunction, as the proper remedy was a regular appeal and the respondent had no right to be protected given his conviction for a crime with a penalty over six years and failure to appear in court. The Supreme Court set aside the court of appeals' rulings and affirmed the trial court's cancellation of

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure Digest

    Original Title

    Chua vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent was convicted of estafa by the regional trial court but failed to appear at multiple court dates. The trial court cancelled the respondent's bail and issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to surrender within five days. The respondent appealed to the court of appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against implementing the bail cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion by issuing the injunction, as the proper remedy was a regular appeal and the respondent had no right to be protected given his conviction for a crime with a penalty over six years and failure to appear in court. The Supreme Court set aside the court of appeals' rulings and affirmed the trial court's cancellation of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    482 views4 pages

    Chua Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Eva Trinidad
    The respondent was convicted of estafa by the regional trial court but failed to appear at multiple court dates. The trial court cancelled the respondent's bail and issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to surrender within five days. The respondent appealed to the court of appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against implementing the bail cancellation. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion by issuing the injunction, as the proper remedy was a regular appeal and the respondent had no right to be protected given his conviction for a crime with a penalty over six years and failure to appear in court. The Supreme Court set aside the court of appeals' rulings and affirmed the trial court's cancellation of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    SUBJECT:

    CRIMPRO

    TOPIC:
    Bail

    Date Made:

    Digest Maker:

    10/8/16

    eamtrinidad

    CASE NAME: Chua vs CA


    PONENTE: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

    Case Date: April 12, 2007

    Case Summary:
    Chiok (private respondent) was on trial before the RTC for estafa. However, he
    failed to appear at the date of the promulgation twice. The RTC promulgated a
    decision convicting him for estafa, and issued an Omnibus Order a) denying
    respondents motion for reconsideration of the judgment of conviction; (b)
    canceling his bail; and (c) giving him five (5) days from notice within which to
    appear before the trial court, otherwise he would be arrested. He failed to appear
    w/in five days, so a warrant of arrest was issued. Respondent then interposed
    with the CA a TRO and writ of prelim injunction enjoining RTC from implementing
    Omnibus Order cancelling his bail, which it granted.
    The Court then held that the CA committed GAOD in issuing TRO and prelim
    injunction because the proper remedy for bail cancellation was a motion for
    review with CA (regular appeal); and that there was no factual/legal basis for
    granting the TRO and injunction, and that to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the
    applicant must show that (1) he has a clear existing right to be protected; and (2)
    the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are in violation of such
    right. His conviction carries penalty of over 6 yrs, which justifies the cancellation
    of bail (Rule 114 Sec 5), and his failure to appear for within 15 days of
    promulgation w justified reason to miss it means that he lost his right to the
    remedies provided in the Rules of Court (Rule 120 Sec 6).
    Rule of Law:
    Rule 114, ROC
    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 nonbailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by
    the appellate court,
    Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to
    continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same
    bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
    If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6)

    years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a
    showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other
    similar circumstances:
    (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
    committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
    (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
    violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
    (c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional
    pardon;
    (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released
    on bail; or
    (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
    pendency of the appeal.
    The appellate court may, motu proprio or ON MOTION OF ANY PARTY, review the
    resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either
    case.

    Detailed Facts:
    Petitioner met private respondent Chiok who represented himself to
    be a licensed stockbroker. She, upon Chioks prodding, then invested a lot of
    money for shares of stocks
    Then in 1995 she entrusted Chiok with Php 9 million. Respondent
    ended up spending the money, and when petitioner asked to pay her back,
    issued two checks that bounced
    Petitioner then came to know that respondent was not a licensed
    stockbroker but only a telephone clerk at Bernard Securities, Inc.
    Immediately, she caused the filing of an information for estafa against him
    with the Regional Trial Court
    During arraignment, respondent pleaded not guilty
    After defense and prosecution presented their evidence, trial court
    set a date for promulgation to January 26, 1999. However the respondent
    and his counsel failed to appear so they moved it to Feb 1, 1999
    Again, respondent and counsel failed to appear, so the RTC rendered
    its decision finding respondent guilty of estafa
    On the same day, Feb 1, 1999, prosecution filed motion for
    cancellation of bail cos resp might flee or commit another crime
    Feb 13, 1999 - resp filed MR for judgment of conviction
    Feb 15, 1999 - hearing of the motion for cancellation of bail. The
    prosecution presented a Record Check Routing Form issued by the Bureau of
    Immigration showing that respondent has an Alien Certificate of Registration
    (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR).
    During that hearing, respondent admitted using the names "Mark

    Tan" and Tong Wai Fat" as aliases.


    May 28, 1999 - RTC issued Omnibus Order (a) denying
    respondents motion for reconsideration of the judgment of
    conviction; (b) canceling his bail; and (c) giving him five (5) days
    from notice within which to appear before the trial court, otherwise
    he would be arrested.
    Respondent then interposed an appeal to the CA from the RTCs
    Order insofar as it denied MR for his conviction
    Also, respondent filed with CA petition for certiorari with
    application for TRO and writ of prelim injunction assailing RTCs
    Omnibus Order
    June 25, 1999 - RTC issued warrant of arrest against resp for
    failure to appear. However it was returned unserved cos he couldnt be
    found at his given address
    July 27, 1999 - CA issued TRO against RTC from implementing
    Omnibus Order cancelling respondents bail
    Sept 20, 1999 - CA issued writ of prelim injunction against the
    Omnibus Order, saying that resp should not be deprived of his liberty
    pending resolution of his appeal as the offense for which he was convicted
    is a non-capital offense; and that the probability that he will flee during the
    pendency of his appeal is merely conjectural
    Petitoner filed MR with CA but it was denied
    Hence this petition for certiorari
    Issue:
    W/N CA acted with GAOD for issuing writ of preliminary injunction against arrest
    of respondent - YES
    Holding:
    1. TRO and writ of prelim injunction is not the proper remedy to assail
    Omnibus Order cancelling his bail. Proper remedy is filing with CA a motion
    to review of the said order in regular appeal proceedings
    2. CAs granting of writ of prelim injunction is bereft of factual or legal
    basis. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the applicant must show that (1)
    he has a clear existing right to be protected; and (2) the acts against which
    the injunction is to be directed are in violation of such right.
    a. The first requisite is absent. Respondent has no right to
    be freed on bail pending his appeal from the trial courts judgment.
    His conviction carries a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years
    (to be exact, 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of
    reclusion temporal, as maximum) which justifies the cancellation of
    his bail pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 5 (b), (d) and (e) of
    Rule 114, quoted above. Moreover, he failed to appear despite notice
    during the promulgation of judgment on January 26, 1999. His

    inexcusable non-appearance not only violated the condition of his bail


    that he "shall appear" before the court "whenever required" by the
    latter or the Rules, but also showed the probability that he might flee
    or commit another crime while released on bail.
    b. Rule 120, Sec 6. Promulgation of Judgment - xxx If the
    judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear
    was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in
    these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.
    Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the
    accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail
    of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the
    scheduled promulgation, and if he proves that his absence was for a
    justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within
    fifteen (15) days from notice.
    Since respondent has not shown any right to be protected, the second requisite for
    the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is obviously absent. As such, the
    Court of Appeals clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed
    resolution.
    Ruling:
    WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The assailed Resolutions dated September
    20, 1999 and November 16, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53340
    are SET ASIDE. Respondent Wilfred N. Chioks petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP
    No. 53340 is DISMISSED. The Omnibus Order dated May 28, 1999 issued by the
    Regional Trial Court, Branch 165, Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 109927 canceling
    respondents bail is AFFIRMED.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy