Skip to main content

Abdula vs. Guiani

Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Post a Comment

Feliciano vs. Pasicolan

Feliciano vs. Pasicolan
GR No. L-14657, July 31, 1961

FACTS:

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 went into hiding.

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. Feliciano vs. Pasicolan



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. the respondent Judge 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.

Read: Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to bail. Feliciano vs. Pasicolan

HELD:

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. Feliciano vs. Pasicolan

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 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
Section 1. Bail defined. – Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. 
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. Feliciano vs. Pasicolan

Read: Tucay vs. Domagas

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. Feliciano vs. Pasicolan
READ FULL TEXT


Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. L-36142, March 31 1973 - 50 SCRA 33 FACTS: On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including. Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground the that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; wi
Read more

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff
Read more