1 Feliciano v. Pansicolan

Feliciano v.
Judge Pasicolan
NATIVIDAD, J.:
They compelled the judge to decide won bail should be accorded to Feliciano even if
he was not yet in the custody of the police
It appears that the petitioner, Pablo Feliciano, was one of the eighteen persons
charged with the crime of kidnapping with murder. Upon learning of the filing of said
information and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued, the petitioner,
fearing, according to his lawyer, that he might fall into the hands of irresponsible
police officers, and to avoid disgrace and humiliation consequent to an arrest and
incarceration, went into hiding. On October 30, 1958, however, Attorney Filemon
Cajator, at the instance of the petitioner's wife, filed in the case a motion asking
that the Court fix at P10,000.00 the amount of the bond for petitioner's release
pending trial. The Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga opposed this motion, on the ground
that the filing thereof was premature as the petitioner had not yet been arrested.
After hearing, the respondent Judge, then presiding the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga, dismissed petitioner's motion, on the ground that "pending his arrest or
surrender, Pablo Feliciano has not the right to ask this court to admit him to bail."
Hence, the instant proceeding.
We fail to find merits in petitioner's contention. The petition at bar is in effect a
petition for admission to bail. And the rule on the subject in this jurisdiction is well
settled. There is no question as to the soundness of the rule invoked by petitioner.
Such is the law in this jurisdiction. But, the rule is subject to the limitation that the
person applying for admission to bail should be in the custody of the law, or
otherwise deprived of his liberty. Bail is defined under the Rules of Court as security
"required and given for the release of a person who is in custody of the law," Rule
110, sec. 1, Rules of Court. In the case of Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634,
this Court held:
This constitutional mandate refers to all persons, not only to persons against whom
a complaint or information has already been formally filed. It lays down the rule that
all persons shall before conviction be bailable except those charged with capital
offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. According to this provision, the general
rule is that any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be
bailable, except when he is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of his
guilt is strong. Of course, only those persons who have been either arrested,
detained or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever have occasion to seek the
benefits of said provision. But in order that a person can invoke the constitutional
precept, it is not necessary that he should wait until a formal complaint or
information is filed against him. From the moment he is placed under arrest,
detention or restraint by the officers of the law, he can claim this guarantee of the
Bill of Rights, and this right he retains unless and until he is charged with a capital
offense and evidence of his guilt is strong.
And in the case of Manigbas vs. Luna, 52 O.G. 1405, it was held:
We hold that this petition is premature for its purpose is to compel the performance
of duty which does not exist there being no correlative right the use or enjoyment of
it has been denied which may be the subject of mandamus (section 67, Rule 3); and
this is so because the right to bail only accrues when a person is arrested or
deprived of his liberty. The purpose of bail is to secure one's release and it would be
incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Thus, 'bail is the security required and
given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law.' (Rule 110, section
1), and evidently the accused do not come within its purview.
In the instant case, the petitioner upon learning that an amended information
charging him and seventeen others with the crime of kidnapping with murder had
been filed, and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued, immediately went into
hiding and until now is at large. Without surrendering himself, he filed the motion in
which he asks that the court fix the amount of the bail bond for his release pending
trial. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is a free man and is under the
jurisprudence not entitled to admission to bail.

1 Feliciano v. Pansicolan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Feliciano v. Pansicolan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Feliciano v. Pansicolan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feliciano v.

You might also like