REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 197
LAS PIÑAS CITY, METRO-MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 02-0006
MARCELO M. DUMBREQUE,
LUISITO V. PEREZ,
AURORA DE LEON RIGOR,
Accused.
x--------------------------x
URGENT PETITION TO GRANT BAIL
ACCUSED, MARCELO M. DUMBREQUE, by himself, and unto
this Honorable Court most respectfully alleges:
Accused herein is charged for ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT in an
Information dated November 26, 2001, which alleges that:
“That sometime in the month of April 2001, in the
City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and all of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, falsely
representing themselves to have the capacity and power to
contract, enlist and recruit workers for employment
abroad, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously collect for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad to AILEEN S. COX
and RAMIL A. TORRANO without first securing the
required licence or authority from the Department of
Labor and Employment.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
- 2-
Presently, the accused is detained at the NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, TAFT AVENUE, MANILA as the Information
recommends no bail for the said offense;
Under the Constitution (Section 13, Article III), bail is a matter of
right if the offense involved is not punishable by reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or capital punishment. However, when the subject offense is
punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or capital punishment
but the evidence of guilt is not strong, the accused is entitled to bail.
The accused believes that the evidence of the prosecution against him
is weak. No less than our Constitution and the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure allows an accused to post bail for his provisional liberty if the
evidence against him is not strong, hence this motion.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that a bail, for the provisional liberty of the herein
accused pending trial, be fixed.
June 23, 2005.
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila.
MARCELO M. DUMBREQUE
Accused
-3-
NOTICE OF HEARING
Office of the City Prosecutor
3rd Flr. Adminstrative Bldg.
Las Piñas City
Greetings:
Please take notice that the foregoing Motion shall be heard on
June 27, 2005 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning for its consideration
and approval by the Honorable Court.
MARCELO M. DUMBREQUE
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC-Branch 197
Las Piñas City
Greetings:
Kindly included in the calendar of this Honorable Court the
foregoing Urgent Petition to Grant Bail and approval on June 27, 2005
at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.
MARCELO M. DUMBREQUE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 199
LAS PIÑAS CITY, METRO-MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 04-0476
BENCIO DACANON y GONZALES
Accused.
x--------------------------x
URGENT PETITION TO GRANT BAIL
ACCUSED, assisted by the Public Attorneys Office, and unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully alleges:
Accused herein is charged for Rape in Relation to Violation R.A.
7610 in an Information dated June 16, 2004, which alleges that:
“That on or about the 14th day of June, 2004 in
the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation,
did,then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge with one Shanon Princess Bravo
y Blas a six(6) year old minor by then and there
inserting his forefinger into the victims vagina against
her will and consent, the act complained of is prejudicial
to the physical and psychological development of
complainant minor.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
- 2-
Presently, the accused is detained at the City Jail of Las Piñas as the
Information recommends no bail for the said offense;
Under the Constitution, bail is a matter of right if the offense
involved is not punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
capital punishment. However, when the subject offense is punishable by
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or capital punishment but the
evidence of guilt is not strong, the accused is entitled to bail.
The offense charged is
punishable by reclusion
temporal, thus bailable
The pertinent provisions of law on the offense, particularly Article
266-A par. 2 states:
“Rape. When and How Committed – Rape is committed:
1) x x x x x x x
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. (underscoring supplied).
Considering that paragraph 12 of Art. 266-B is not easily discernible,
the full provision on the penalty for rape by sexual assault, is hereunder
quoted, to wit:
“Rape under paragraph 2 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by prision
mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the
use of deadly weapon or by two or more person,
the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion
temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty
shall be reclusion temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide
is committed by reason or on occasion thereof, the
penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if
the rape is committed with any of the ten
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned
in this article.
From the afore-quoted penal provisions, the imposable penalty for the offense
charged is reclusion temporal. The minority of the alleged victim, who was allegedly six
year old at the time of the alleged commission raises the penalty to reclusion temporal
only. It is in rape by sexual intercourse, under paragraph 1 of Art. 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, where the qualifying circumstance that victim is below 7 years of age raises
the penalty to death.
Offense for rape by sexual assault
is bailable jurisprudence –
In an en-banc decision which was promulgated on October 1, 2003,
the Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret pertinent provisions of
Republic Act 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Act of 1997. The
Court started by distinguishing rapes committed by sexual intercourse (par.
1, Art. 266-A, RPC) and by sexual assault (par. 2). In a new provision,
designated Art. 266-A, the crime of rape is committed either by sexual
intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape by sexual intercourse, pursuant to
the first paragraph of the article, is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman x x x x x . Rape by sexual assault, mentioned
in second paragraph of the same article, is committed by any person who,
under any of the aforestated circumstances, inserted his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital
or anal orifice of another person. (People vs. Olaybar, G.R. No. 150630-31,
October 1, 2003)
In the above-cited case, the accused was charged for two counts of
rape , one for rape by sexual intercourse and the other for sexual assault.
Accused was found guilty by the lower court and meted the supreme penalty
of death in both case. While the high court affirmed the lower court’s
finding of guilt of the accused, it modified the penalty of death for the rape
committed by sexual assault. –
“In Criminal Case No. 00-1601, the penalty
for the offense of rape by sexual assault,
conformably with Article 266-B of the Code, is
prision mayor or one degree lower than that
imposed for rape by sexual intercourse. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence law, and absent any
modifying circumstance, the imposable penalty
should then be anywhere from eight (8) years and
one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor
medium, as maximum penalty, and anywhere
within the range of from six (6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum penalty, for the offense.”
Clearly, the penalty for rape committed by sexual intercourse and
sexual assault are different. The penalty for rape thru sexual assault is
lower. While the alleged commission of rape by herein accused Bencio
Decanon is qualified by the fact that alleged victim is below seven (7) years
old, nevertheless, the penalty is only reclusion temporal. The offense
charged is therefore bailable.
Bail a matter of right –
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right,
with sufficient sureties x x x x (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. (Sec. 4, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). 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. (Sec. 7,
Ibid) Considering that herein accused Bencio Decanon is charged for an
offense punishable by reclusion temporal only, he is entitled to bail as a
matter of right.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that a bail, for the provisional liberty of the herein
accused pending trial, be fixed.
January 17, 2005.
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Las Piñas City District Office
3rd Floor, Hall of Justice
Las Piñas City, Metro Manila
By:
EUGENE C. CABARDO
Public Attorney II
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC, Branch 199
Greetings:
Please include the foregoing Motion in the Court’s calendar of hearing
immediately upon receipt hereof.
EUGENE C. CABARDO
Pros. Ma. Cynthia Fatima Madamba-Luang
Office of the City Prosecutor
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 199
LAS PIÑAS CITY, METRO-MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 04-0799
ROBERTO ABASOLO
Accused.
x--------------------------x
URGENT PETITION TO GRANT BAIL
ACCUSED, by himself, and unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully alleges:
Accused herein is charged for Rape in Relation to Violation R.A.
7610 in an Information dated July 7, 2004, which alleges that:
“That on or about the 17 th day of March, 2004 in
the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd design and by means of force, teath or
intimidation, did,then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit sexual assault by inserting his
forefinger into the vagina of one LIANNE B. DELA
HOSTRIA, a six(6) year old minor over whom he has a
moral ascendancy the child regarding him as :Tito Bobit”
against her will and consent, thereby subjecting her to
sexual assault and abuse,an act prejudicial to her
physical and psychological development.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
- 2-
Presently, the accused is detained at the City Jail of Las Piñas as the
Information recommends no bail for the said offense;
Under the Constitution, bail is a matter of right if the offense
involved is not punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
capital punishment. However, when the subject offense is punishable by
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or capital punishment but the
evidence of guilt is not strong, the accused is entitled to bail.
The offense charged is
punishable by reclusion
temporal, thus bailable
The pertinent provisions of law on the offense, particularly Article
266-A par. 2 states:
“Rape. When and How Committed – Rape is committed:
2) x x x x x x x
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. (underscoring supplied).
Considering that paragraph 12 of Art. 266-B is not easily discernible,
the full provision on the penalty for rape by sexual assault, is hereunder
quoted, to wit:
“Rape under paragraph 2 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by prision
mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the
use of deadly weapon or by two or more person,
the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion
temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty
shall be reclusion temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide
is committed by reason or on occasion thereof, the
penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if
the rape is committed with any of the ten
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned
in this article.
From the afore-quoted penal provisions, the imposable penalty for the offense
charged is reclusion temporal. The minority of the alleged victim, who was below 7
years old at the time of the alleged commission raises the penalty to reclusion temporal
only. It is in rape by sexual intercourse, under paragraph 1 of Art. 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, where the qualifying circumstance that victim is below 7 years of age raises
the penalty to death.
Offense for rape by sexual assault
is bailable jurisprudence –
In an en-banc decision which was promulgated on October 1, 2003,
the Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret pertinent provisions of
Republic Act 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Act of 1997. The
Court started by distinguishing rapes committed by sexual intercourse (par.
1, Art. 266-A, RPC) and by sexual assault (par. 2). In a new provision,
designated Art. 266-A, the crime of rape is committed either by sexual
intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape by sexual intercourse, pursuant to
the first paragraph of the article, is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman x x x x x . Rape by sexual assault, mentioned
in second paragraph of the same article, is committed by any person who,
under any of the aforestated circumstances, inserted his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital
or anal orifice of another person. (People vs. Olaybar, G.R. No. 150630-31,
October 1, 2003)
In the above-cited case, the accused was charged for two (2) counts
for rape, one for rape by sexual intercourse and the other for sexual assault.
Accused was found guilty by the lower court and meted the supreme penalty
of death in both case. While the high court affirmed the lower court’s
finding of guilt of the accused, it modified the penalty of death for the rape
committed by sexual assault. –
“In Criminal Case No. 00-1601, the penalty
for the offense of rape by sexual assault,
conformably with Article 266-B of the Code, is
prision mayor or one degree lower than that
imposed for rape by sexual intercourse. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence law, and absent any
modifying circumstance, the imposable penalty
should then be anywhere from eight (8) years and
one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor
medium, as maximum penalty, and anywhere
within the range of from six (6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum penalty, for the offense.”
Clearly, the penalty for rape committed by sexual intercourse and
sexual assault are different. The penalty for rape thru sexual assault is
lower. While the alleged commission of rape by herein accused Roberto
Abasolo is qualified by the fact that alleged victim is below seven (7) years
old, nevertheless, the penalty is only reclusion temporal. The offense
charged is therefore bailable.
Bail a matter of right –
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right,
with sufficient sureties x x x x (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. (Sec. 4, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). 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. (Sec. 7,
Ibid) Considering that herein accused Roberto Abasolo is charged for an
offense punishable by reclusion temporal only, he is entitled to bail as a
matter of right.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that a bail, for the provisional liberty of the herein
accused pending trial, be fixed.
December 2, 2004.
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila.
ROBERTO ABASOLO
Accused
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC, Branch 199
Greetings:
Please include the foregoing Motion in the Court’s calendar of hearing
immediately upon receipt hereof.
ROBERTO ABASOLO
Pros. Ma. Cynthia Fatima Madamba-Luang
Office of the City Prosecutor
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 275
LAS PIÑAS CITY, METRO-MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 03-0455
FOR: VIOL. OF SEC. 5, ART. II
FERNANDO GOROSPE y MAÑAGO R.A. 9165
Alias “NANDING”,
ROMUALDO AMANO y CASTILLO
Alias “MAY”,
Accused.
x--------------------------x
URGENT PETITION TO GRANT BAIL
COMES NOW accused FERNANDO GOROSPE y MAÑAGO alias
“NANDING’ and ROMUALDO AMANO y CASTILLO alias “MAY”, by the
undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully allege:
1. That accused FERNANDO GOROSPE y MAÑAGO alias “NANDING’ and
ROMUALDO AMANO y CASTILLO alias “MAY” have been charged before this
Honorable Court with the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165, or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act;
2. That a warrant for their arrest was issued by this Honorable Court and by
virtue thereof they were arrested and are now presently under detention and custody at
the City Jail, Las Piñas City;
3. That they were never a participants to the crime charged, nor violated the
provisions of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act. They have no knowledge whatsoever as to the alleged violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Law. They are ordinary citizens who work in a legal and legitimate
manner without violating any rule, law or regulations. In other words, they have not
committed the crime charged;
4. That the probability of their being convicted is thus remote, and their being
acquitted of the crime charged is a very big possibility considering that they have no
participation to the crime imputed to them nor have they violated the provisions of Sec. 5,
Art. II of RA 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act;
5. That there is no danger that they will take flight considering that they are
ordinary citizens, they have no money to spend for going abroad, they have a family to
take care of; and that they are not a fugitives from justice. In fact, this is the first criminal
offense to which they, as laymen, have been unceremoniously charged of;
6. That if bail is herein granted the accused, they will agree to the conditions or
requirements to be set forth by this Honorable Court, among others, the following: that
they will report regularly at reasonable hours to this Honorable Court’ that they will be
confined themselves within the city, Las Piñas City, and if they go outside of Las Piñas
they will ask prior permission from this Honorable Court; that they will appear at the trial
as directed by this Honorable Court;
7. That if bail is granted the herein accused, the amount of the bail should be
fixed to a very reasonable amount and that it should be a surety bond, not a cash bond or
property bond considering their poverty; that they are an ordinary citizens; and that they
have no real properties with which to put up a property bond;
8. That the grant of bail is a statutory and constitutional right of the accused
herein, especially before their conviction of the crime charged by this Honorable Court
(Sec. 4, Rule 114, 200 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure; Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987
Constitution);
9. That the crime charged, Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, does not fall under the Heinous
Crimes Law;
10. That the accused is entitled to his constitutional presumption of innocence of
the crime charged until the contrary is proved, as provided for under the Constitution
(Sec. 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution;
11. That while the crime charged is Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, this Honorable Court is
vested with discretion to grant bail to the herein accused, especially considering the
foregoing justifications invoked by herein accused for granting them bail.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of justice, it is
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that accused’s Urgent Petition to Grant Bail
be granted, and that herein accused FERNANDO GOROSPE y MAÑAGO alias
“NANDING’ and ROMUALDO AMANO y CASTILLO alias “MAY” be granted bail
for their provisional liberty and bail should be of such a reasonable amount as may be
fixed by this Honorable Court.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are also prayed for.
VERIFICATION
WE, FERNANDO GOROSPE y MAÑAGO and ROMUALDO AMANO y
CASTILLO, of legal ages, Filipinos, after being duly sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and say:
1. That we are the accused in the above-entitled criminal case;
2. That we caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Urgent Petition to
Grant Bail;
3. That we have read and understood the contents of the petition, and the
allegations therein are true and correct of our own personal knowledge.
FERNANDO M. GOROSPE ROMUALDO C. AMANO
Affiant Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __th day of October, 2003 in Las
Piñas, affiants exhibited to me their CTC Nos. ______________ and _____________,
issued at _____________, on ______________.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 199
LAS PIÑAS CITY, METRO-MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 04-0799
ALBERTO IGNACIO
Accused.
x--------------------------x
URGENT PETITION TO GRANT BAIL
ACCUSED, by counsel, in addition to the averments in the earlier
Urgent Petition to Grant Bail dated July 19, 2004 most respectfully avers,
that:
The offense charged is
punishable by reclusion
temporal, thus bailable
The pertinent provisions of law on the offense, particularly Article
266-A par. 2 states:
“Rape. When and How Committed – Rape is committed:
3) x x x x x x x
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. (underscoring supplied).
Considering that paragraph 12 of Art. 266-B is not easily discernible,
the full provision on the penalty for rape by sexual assault, is hereunder
quoted, to wit:
“Rape under paragraph 2 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by prision
mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the
use of deadly weapon or by two or more person,
the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion
temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty
shall be reclusion temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide
is committed by reason or on occasion thereof, the
penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if
the rape is committed with any of the ten
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned
in this article.
From the afore-quoted penal provisions, the imposable penalty for the offense
charged is reclusion temporal. The minority of the alleged victim, who was below 7
years old at the time of the alleged commission raises the penalty to reclusion temporal
only. It is in rape by sexual intercourse, under paragraph 1 of Art. 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, where the qualifying circumstance that victim is below 7 years of age raises
the penalty to death.
Offense for rape by sexual assault
is bailable jurisprudence –
In an en-banc decision which was promulgated on October 1, 2003,
the Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret pertinent provisions of
Republic Act 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Act of 1997. The
Court started by distinguishing rapes committed by sexual intercourse (par.
1, Art. 266-A, RPC) and by sexual assault (par. 2). In a new provision,
designated Art. 266-A, the crime of rape is committed either by sexual
intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape by sexual intercourse, pursuant to
the first paragraph of the article, is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman x x x x x . Rape by sexual assault, mentioned
in second paragraph of the same article, is committed by any person who,
under any of the aforestated circumstances, inserted his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital
or anal orifice of another person. (People vs. Olaybar, G.R. No. 150630-31,
October 1, 2003)
In the above-cited case, the accused was charged for two (2) counts
for rape, one for rape by sexual intercourse and the other for sexual assault.
Accused was found guilty by the lower court and meted the supreme penalty
of death in both case. While the high court affirmed the lower court’s
finding of guilt of the accused, it modified the penalty of death for the rape
committed by sexual assault. –
“In Criminal Case No. 00-1601, the penalty
for the offense of rape by sexual assault,
conformably with Article 266-B of the Code, is
prision mayor or one degree lower than that
imposed for rape by sexual intercourse. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence law, and absent any
modifying circumstance, the imposable penalty
should then be anywhere from eight (8) years and
one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor
medium, as maximum penalty, and anywhere
within the range of from six (6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum penalty, for the offense.”
Clearly, the penalty for rape committed by sexual intercourse and
sexual assault are different. The penalty for rape thru sexual assault is
lower. While the alleged commission of rape by herein accused Alberto
Ignacio is qualified by the fact that alleged victim is below seven (7) years
old, nevertheless, the penalty is only reclusion temporal. The offense
charged is therefore bailable.
Bail a matter of right –
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right,
with sufficient sureties x x x x (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. (Sec. 4, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). 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. (Sec. 7,
Ibid) Considering that accused Alberto Ignacio is charged for an offense
punishable by reclusion temporal only, he is entitled to bail as a matter of
right.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that a bail, for the provisional liberty of the accused
pending trial, be fixed.
August 5, 2004.
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Las Piñas City District Office
3rd Floor, Hall of Justice
Las Piñas City, Metro Manila
By:
EUGENE C. CABARDO
Public Attorney II
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC, Branch 199
Greetings:
Please include the foregoing Motion in the Court’s calendar of hearing
immediately upon receipt hereof.
ATTY. EUGENE C. CABARDO
Pros. Ma. Cynthia Fatima Madamba-Luang
Office of the City Prosecutor
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila
COMES NOW accused ALBERTO IGNACIO, by the undersigned counsel, and
to this Honorable Court, respectfully allege:
1. That accused ALBERTO IGNACIO alias “Abet” have been
charged before this Honorable Court with the crime of Violation of Sec.
5(a), Art. II, R.A. 8369, in an information dated January 32, 2004, which
alleges that:
“ That on or about November ,2003 in the City of Las Piñas,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force,violence and intimidation
and with lewd design, did then and there willfully,unlawfully and
feloneously have carnal knowledge with one KIM DENISE D.
CANONOY, a six(6) year old minor, by then and there inserting his
penis inside her mouth against her will and without her consent, the
act complained of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological
development of the complainant”
2.That presently, the accused is detained at the City Jail of Las Piñas as the
information recommends no bail for the said offense;
3. Under the Constitution, bail is a matter of right if the offense involved is not
punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or capital punishment. However,
when the subject offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
capital punishment but the evidence of guilt is not strong, the accused is entitled to bail.
4. That perusal of the records of the case, there were other written testimony of
the from the prosecution that would corroborate the sole testimony of the private
complainant KIM DENISE CANOYNOY, thus, a probability that the evidence of guilt of
the accused is not strong;
5 That there is no danger that they will take flight considering that they are
ordinary citizens, they have no money to spend for going abroad, they have a family to
take care of; and that they are not a fugitives from justice. In fact, this is the first criminal
offense to which they, as laymen, have been unceremoniously charged of;
6. That if bail is herein granted the accused, they will agree to the conditions or
requirements to be set forth by this Honorable Court, among others, the following: that
they will report regularly at reasonable hours to this Honorable Court’ that they will be
confined themselves within the city, Las Piñas City, and if they go outside of Las Piñas
they will ask prior permission from this Honorable Court; that they will appear at the trial
as directed by this Honorable Court;
7. That if bail is granted the herein accused, the amount of the bail should be
fixed to a very reasonable amount and that it should be a surety bond, not a cash bond or
property bond considering their poverty; that they are an ordinary citizens; and that they
have no real properties with which to put up a property bond;
8. That the accused is entitled to his constitutional presumption of innocence of
the crime charged until the contrary is proved, as provided for under the Constitution
(Sec. 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution.Hence, the right to bail flows from the
Constitutional presumption of innocence.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of justice, it is
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that accused’s Urgent Petition to Grant Bail
be granted, and that herein accused ALBERTO IGNACIO.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are also prayed for.
July 19, 2004, Las Piñas City.
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila.
April 26, 2004.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Las Piñas City District Office
3rd Floor, Hall of Justice
Las Piñas City, Metro Manila
BY:
EUGENE C. CABARDO
Public Attorney II
The Branch Clerk of Court
Las Piñas City
Greetings:
Please be advised that the undersigned counsel shall submit the
foregoing Petition for the consideration and approval of this Honorable
immediately upon receipt hereof.
ATTY. EUGENE C. CABARDO
COPY FURNISHED
Office of the City Prosecutor
Las Piñas City
