Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 277 views

    Qui v. People

    Uploaded by

    Hezro
    1) Cyril Calpito Qui was convicted of violating a law protecting children and sentenced to 5-7 years in prison. She appealed the conviction. 2) The Court of Appeals denied Qui's application for bail pending appeal, finding she was a flight risk based on failing to attend hearings and lying about reasons for absences. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail, noting Qui's propensity to disobey court processes through lying, failing to attend hearings which led to arrest warrants, and changing residences without informing authorities, demonstrating her inclination to evade legal processes.

    Copyright:

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

    Qui v. People

    Uploaded by

    Hezro
    277 views2 pages
    1) Cyril Calpito Qui was convicted of violating a law protecting children and sentenced to 5-7 years in prison. She appealed the conviction. 2) The Court of Appeals denied Qui's application for bail pending appeal, finding she was a flight risk based on failing to attend hearings and lying about reasons for absences. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail, noting Qui's propensity to disobey court processes through lying, failing to attend hearings which led to arrest warrants, and changing residences without informing authorities, demonstrating her inclination to evade legal processes.

    Original Description:

    CrimPro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Cyril Calpito Qui was convicted of violating a law protecting children and sentenced to 5-7 years in prison. She appealed the conviction. 2) The Court of Appeals denied Qui's application for bail pending appeal, finding she was a flight risk based on failing to attend hearings and lying about reasons for absences. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail, noting Qui's propensity to disobey court processes through lying, failing to attend hearings which led to arrest warrants, and changing residences without informing authorities, demonstrating her inclination to evade legal processes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    277 views2 pages

    Qui v. People

    Uploaded by

    Hezro
    1) Cyril Calpito Qui was convicted of violating a law protecting children and sentenced to 5-7 years in prison. She appealed the conviction. 2) The Court of Appeals denied Qui's application for bail pending appeal, finding she was a flight risk based on failing to attend hearings and lying about reasons for absences. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail, noting Qui's propensity to disobey court processes through lying, failing to attend hearings which led to arrest warrants, and changing residences without informing authorities, demonstrating her inclination to evade legal processes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Qui v.

    People
    G.R. No. 196161 | September 26, 2012
    VELASCO, JR., J.

    FACTS:
    Cyril Calpito Qui (Qui) was charged with two counts of violation of Sec. 10 (a), Article VI of
    R.A. 7610 for shouting invectives while pointing her fingers at a child named Christian John Ignacio.
    The RTC convicted Qui as charged, and sentenced her to two equal periods of imprisonment
    for an indeterminate penalty of five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty one (21) days of prision
    correccional in its maximum period, as minimum, to seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1)
    day of prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum.
    Qui filed her Notice of Appeal. With the perfection of her appeal and the consequent
    elevation of the case records to the CA, petitioner filed before the CA an Urgent Petition/Application
    for Bail Pending Appeal which respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the
    Solicitor General (OSG), opposed. The OSG urged for the denial of the bail application on the ground
    of Quis propensity to evade the law and that she is a flight-risk, as she in fact failed to attend
    several hearings before the RTC resulting in the issuance of three warrants for her arrest.
    The CA denied Quis application for bail pending appeal on the basis of Sec. 5 (d) of Rule
    114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise
    rejected. Hence, the petition before the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:
    Given the circumstances, was Qui entitled to bail? NO

    RATIO:
    Bail pending appeal is governed by Sec. 5 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.1
    Under the present rule, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the RTC of an
    offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, which is the situation in
    the case at bar.

    1 See codal for the complete provision. Only the following are important in this case:
    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.
    xxx
    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:
    xxx
    (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
    released on bail;
    xxx
    The SC said that the CA anchored its denial on several circumstances, pointed out by the
    OSG, which showed petitioner's propensity to evade the law, as when she failed to attend the
    hearings before the RTC, which compelled said court to issue three warrants for petitioner's
    arrest. There is no dispute, and petitioner does not deny the fact, that on various dates, the RTC
    issued warrants for her arrest.
    The SC held that the CA properly exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's application
    for bail pending appeal. The CA's determination as to petitioner being a high risk for flight was not
    without factual mooring.
    According to the SC, Quis penchant to disobey court processes may also be deduced
    from the fact that she lied in order to wiggle out of, and justify her non-appearance on the
    March 8, 2010 hearing before the RTC. Petitioner gave the convenient but false excuse that her
    father, Cirilo Calpito, was hospitalized on said hearing day (i.e., March 8, 2010) and that Cirilo died
    on March 24, 2010. However, the Death Certificate of Calpito clearly showed that he died on March
    24, 2009 or a year before the March 2010 RTC hearing. Also, the CertiCcation issued by Dr. Aniana
    Javier stated that Cirilo went to her clinic on March 9, 2009.
    Additionally, the RTC notice sent to Quis bonding company was returned with the
    notation "moved out," while the notice sent to Quis given address was returned unclaimed
    with the notation "RTS no such person according to Hesita Family" who were the actual
    occupants in Quis given address. The fact of transferring residences without informing her
    bondsman and the trial court can only be viewed as Quis inclination to evade court appearance, as
    indicative of flight, and an attempt to place herself beyond the pale of the law.
    Therefore, the petition was denied.

    You might also like