Scribd
Upload
571 views2 pages

122-ATIENZA - People vs. Fortes (G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993)

The Supreme Court ruled that an accused who has been convicted of a capital offense by a trial court is not entitled to bail, even if appealing the conviction. The case involved Agustin Fortes, who was convicted of raping a 13-year old girl. While normally bail is a matter of right or discretion before conviction, the Court held that once convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua like rape, bail is neither a right of the accused nor within the discretion of the court to grant. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied Fortes' application for bail filed after his conviction while his appeal was pending.

Uploaded by

Adrian Gabriel S. Atienza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
571 views2 pages

122-ATIENZA - People vs. Fortes (G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993)

The Supreme Court ruled that an accused who has been convicted of a capital offense by a trial court is not entitled to bail, even if appealing the conviction. The case involved Agustin Fortes, who was convicted of raping a 13-year old girl. While normally bail is a matter of right or discretion before conviction, the Court held that once convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua like rape, bail is neither a right of the accused nor within the discretion of the court to grant. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied Fortes' application for bail filed after his conviction while his appeal was pending.

Uploaded by

Adrian Gabriel S. Atienza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People vs. Fortes [G.R. No.

90643, June 25, 1993]


DOCTRINE: BAIL CANNOT BE GRANTED ON AN ACCUSED WHO HAS
BEEN CONVICTED OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE EVEN IF THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION IS APPEALED.

Facts: The conviction of Agustin Fortes for the rape of a 13-year old sixth grade
pupil and the denial by the trial court of his application for bail pending his appeal
from the judgment of conviction are questioned in these consolidated cases.

In G.R. No. 90643, the accused appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court. The court a quo, in its Decision, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay
the victim the sum of P20,000.00. In G.R. No. 91155, the subject matter we are
concerned with, the accused seeks to annul and set aside two related orders of the
said trial court denying his application for bail, filed after his conviction, to secure
his provisional liberty pending the resolution of his appeal.

Issue: Whether or not before conviction by final judgment, the accused enjoys the
constitutional presumption of innocence, and is therefore entitled to bail as a matter
of right.

Held: No. It is clear from Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and
Section 3, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, that before
conviction bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right
when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua. To that extent the right is absolute. If the offense charged is punishable
by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion. It shall be denied if the
evidence of guilt is strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether
or not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is determined that the evidence of
guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right. If an accused who is
charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial
court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the
part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court.

You might also like