Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 170 views

    Yap vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    1. Petitioner Francisco Yap was convicted of estafa and sentenced to pay P5,500,000 but appealed the conviction. 2. The Court of Appeals upheld the solicitor general's recommendation to set bail at P5,500,000, the amount of the civil liability. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the bail amount was excessive and violated Yap's right against excessive bail. Bail should not be equivalent to the civil liability and must be reasonably calculated to ensure the accused's appearance at trial based on various factors like financial ability and weight of evidence.

    Copyright:

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

    Yap vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    170 views2 pages
    1. Petitioner Francisco Yap was convicted of estafa and sentenced to pay P5,500,000 but appealed the conviction. 2. The Court of Appeals upheld the solicitor general's recommendation to set bail at P5,500,000, the amount of the civil liability. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the bail amount was excessive and violated Yap's right against excessive bail. Bail should not be equivalent to the civil liability and must be reasonably calculated to ensure the accused's appearance at trial based on various factors like financial ability and weight of evidence.

    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. Petitioner Francisco Yap was convicted of estafa and sentenced to pay P5,500,000 but appealed the conviction. 2. The Court of Appeals upheld the solicitor general's recommendation to set bail at P5,500,000, the amount of the civil liability. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the bail amount was excessive and violated Yap's right against excessive bail. Bail should not be equivalent to the civil liability and must be reasonably calculated to ensure the accused's appearance at trial based on various factors like financial ability and weight of evidence.

    Copyright:

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

    Yap vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    1. Petitioner Francisco Yap was convicted of estafa and sentenced to pay P5,500,000 but appealed the conviction. 2. The Court of Appeals upheld the solicitor general's recommendation to set bail at P5,500,000, the amount of the civil liability. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the bail amount was excessive and violated Yap's right against excessive bail. Bail should not be equivalent to the civil liability and must be reasonably calculated to ensure the accused's appearance at trial based on various factors like financial ability and weight of evidence.

    Copyright:

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

    Yap v.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
    Facts:
    Petitioner Francisco Yap was convicted of estafa for misappropriating amount equivalent to P5,
    500,000.00. He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed provisional liberty under the
    cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings. The motion was denied by the Regional Trial
    Court.
    Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Fix Bail for the Provisional Liberty of
    Accused Appellant Pending Appeal, invoking the last paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the
    1997 Revised Rules of Court. The Solicitor General opined that the petitioner may be allowed to
    post bail in the amount of P5.5 million and be required to secure a certification/guaranty from the
    Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be
    so until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice
    to the court and private complainant.
    The Court of Appeals upheld the Solicitor General’s recommendation. A motion for
    reconsideration was filed, seeking the reduction of the amount of bail fixed by the Court of
    Appeals, but was denied.

    Issue:
    1. Whether or not the proposed bail of P5, 500,000.00 was violative of petitioner’s right
    against excessive bail.

    Ruling:
    1. Yes. The setting of the amount at P5, 500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive, and
    constitutes an effective denial of petitioner’s right to bail.

    The Rules of Court never intended for the civil liability of the accused to be a guideline
    or basis for determining the amount of bail. The amount should be high enough to assure
    the presence of the accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to
    fulfill this purpose.

    Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure advises courts to
    consider the following factors in the setting of amount of bail.
    a.) Financial ability of the accused to give bail
    b.) Nature and circumstances of the offense
    c.) Penalty for the offense charged
    d.) Character ad reputation of the accused
    e.) Age and health of the accused
    f.) Weight of the evidence against the accused
    g.) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
    h.) Forfeiture of other bail
    i.) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
    j.) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bal.

    In this case, to fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of which petitioner is
    charged (P5, 000,000.00) is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an
    exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of; this cannot allow because bail is
    not intended as a punishment nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should
    necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court.

    You might also like