REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
CA-G.R. CR No. 44367

-versus-

VOLTAIRE GEBILAGUIN y
Rejuso, MERLY OCSALA y
Bacolpo.
Accused-Appellants.
x----------------------------------x

MOTION TO ALLOW ACCUSED-APPELLANT

VOLTAIRE R. GEBILAGUIN
TO POST BAIL PENDING APPEAL

ACCUSED-APPELLANT, VOLTAIRE R. GEBILAGUIN,

through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully states:

1. Accused-appellant Gebilaguin was charged under a

an Information dated 03 August 2013 for violation of Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and was convicted
therefor by the Regional Trial Court of San Jacinto, Masbate –
Branch 50, in the Decision dated 06 September 2019, the
dispositive portion of which, reads:

““WHEREFORE, PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the Court finds the two (2)
accused VOLTAIRE GEGILAGUIN Y
REJUSO and MERLY OCASLA Y
BACOLPO GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the charge for Violation of
Section 11, Article II, of RA 9165 and
sentences each of them to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day as minimum to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months
as maximum and to pay a fine of Three
1 of 7.
 Hundred Thousand Pesos [Php]
300,000.00.

The bond posted by the accused for

their temporary liberty is hereby ordered
canceled, responsibility of the bondsmen
is hereby ordered terminated.

The period of detention of the two (2)

accused shall be credited in their favor.

Accused VOLTAIRE GEGILAGUIN Y

REJUSO and MERLY OCSALA Y
BACOLPO are hereby ordered committed
to the BJMP-San Jacinto, Masbate and
later to the New Bilibid Prison,
Muntinlupa City.

SO ORDERED.”

2. Accused-appellant Gebilaguin’s conviction is now on

appeal before this Honorable Court, while he has been
committed and is currently serving sentence at the New Bilibid
Prison in Muntinlupa City.

3. The accused-appellant implores this Honorable

Court to allow him the privilege of enjoying his temporary
liberty while this case is pending appeal. The Supreme Court,
in Administrative Circular No. 38-2020, recognizes the urgent
need to further decongest detention facilities, especially during
this time of public health emergency and to promote social
and restorative justice. Accused-appellant Gebilaguin implores
this Honorable Court to consider this and the fact that he has
only been sentenced twelve (12) years and one (1) day as
minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as
maximum as sufficient grounds for the grant of his temporary
liberty pending appeal.

4. This motion to post bail pending appeal is filed

pursuant to Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure which pertinently states:

“SEC. 5. Bail, when

Discretionary. – Upon conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is
2 of 7.
discretionary. The application for bail
may be filed and acted upon the trial
court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted
the original record to the appellate court.
However, if the decision of the trial court
convicting the accused changed the
nature of the offense from non-bailable to
bailable, the application for bail can only
be filed with and resolved by the appellate
court.

Should the court grant the

application, the accused may be accused
may be allowed to continue on
provisional liberty during the pendency of
the appeal under the same bail subject to
the consent of the bondsman.

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:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-

recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped

from legal confinement, evaded sentence,
or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense

while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his

case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or

3 of 7.
 (e) That there is undue risk that
he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.

The appellate court may, motu

proprio or on motion of any party, review
the resolution of the Regional Trial Court
after notice to the adverse party in either
case.”

5. It is submitted that none of the circumstances

mention in Section 5, par. 3, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is
present, so as to warrant the denial of his application for bail.
He is not a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent.
There is likewise no finding that the crime was aggravated by
the circumstance of reiteracion. He has not previously escaped
from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail. There was also no finding that he
committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon. The circumstances of this case do not
indicate probability of flight if he is released from jail; and
there is no risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal. Further, he has no intention to evade
his sentence pending appeal or frustrate the disposition of the
same.

6. At any rate, the dissent of Honorable Justice

Diosdado Peralta in Lumanog v. People1 is particularly
enlightening on the proper application of the rule on bail
pending appeal:

“Above all else, the CA should

have applied the provisions of Section
5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court,
wherein the appellate court is given the
discretion to grant bail to the petitioner
after considering the enumerated
circumstances, the penalty imposed by
the trial court having exceeded six years.
Although this Court has held that the
discretion to extend bail during the
course of the appeal should be exercised
with grave caution and for strong
reasons, considering that the accused
has been in fact convicted by the trial
court, the set of circumstances
1
G.R. No. 189122. March 17, 2010.

4 of 7.
 succinctly provided in Section 5, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court should be
considered.

The said set of circumstances

has been provided as a guide for the
exercise of the appellate court's
discretion in granting or denying the
application for bail, pending the appeal of
an accused who has been convicted of a
crime where the penalty imposed by the
trial court is imprisonment exceeding six
(6) years. Otherwise, if it is intended
that the said discretion be absolute, no
such set of circumstances would have
been necessarily included in the Rules.
Thus, if the present ruling of the CA is
upheld, anyone who has been charged
with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment but convicted by the trial
court of a lesser offense, would no longer
be able to apply for bail pending one's
appeal. And by that premise, the
discretion accorded to the appellate court
in granting or denying applications for
bail for those who have been convicted by
the trial court with imprisonment
exceeding six (6) years as penalty would
have to be rendered nugatory and the
provisions of Section 5, Rule 114 of
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure would also be rendered
useless.”(emphasis supplied)

7. The accused-appellant undertakes to comply with

the conditions of his bail should this Honorable Court
favorably acts upon his application for bail pending appeal.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the accused-appellant be
given the privilege to post bail pending appeal.

Quezon City for the City of Manila,

5 of 7.
 23 September 2020.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Special and Appealed Cases Service
th
5 Floor, DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA Road
corner East Avenue
Diliman 1101, Quezon City
Tel Nos. 89289137/89299436 loc. 111
paosacs.co@gmail.com

By:

FLORDELIZA G. MERELOS
Public Attorney IV
Roll No. 53873
IBP Lifetime Member No. 09510/01-06-11
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0006254/02 February 2018

NAZARIO C. BANCORO, JR.

Public Attorney IV
Attorney’s Roll No. 50118
IBP Lifetime Member No. 05384/12 April 2005/Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0006201/05 February 2018

TERRY JOY P. BARBOZA-JALECO

Public Attorney III
Roll No. 53728
IBP Lifetime No. 010026; 5-11-2011
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0006218; 02-01-18

ANDREI MARION B. BLANCIA

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 62277
IBP No. 18454; 08 January 2020; Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0006222; 02-01-18

6 of 7.
 EXPLANATION

The foregoing Motion is being served by registered mail,

personal service not being practicable due the limited number
of messengers in the undersigned’s office.

ANDREI MARION B. BLANCIA

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL
Counsel for Respondent Reg. Receipt No. _______
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Date: __/__/20

VOLTAIRE R. GEBILAGUIN
Thru: The Superintendent
New Bilibid Prison Reg. Receipt No. _______
1770 Muntinlupa City Date: __/__/20

7 of 7.