Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 58
Lucena City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff,
-versus- Criminal Case No. 2017-391
For: Violation of R.A.9208
APOLONIO ISON Y TORRONO
AND VILMA SERDENA Y CALUCIN,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PETITION FOR BAIL
ACCUSED APOLONIO T. ISON, by counsel, to this Honorable
Court, most respectfully states that:
1. Accused was charged with the crime of Violation of Section R.A.
No. 9208 otherwise known as Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003;
2. This case arose from the buy-bust operation of the National
Bureau of Investigation on 14 March 2012 at Hot Temptation located at
Evangelista Street, Barangay 6, Lucena City;
3. R.A. 9208 provides that:
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any
person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
x x x
Section 10. Penalties and Sanctions. - The following penalties and
sanctions are hereby established for the offenses enumerated in this Act:
(a) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in
Section 4 shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years
and a fine of not less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but not more
than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
4. Section 13, Article lll (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution
provides the “ALL PERSONS, EXCEPT THOSE CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION PERPETUA WHEN
1
EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG, SHALL BEFORE CONVICTION,
BE BAILABLE BY SUFFICIENT SURITIES, OR BE RELEASED ON
RECOGNIZANCE AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW” (Emphasis
added);
5. Pursuant thereto, Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides that:
Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. — All persons in custody
shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or
released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after
conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b)
before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
Section 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. The application for
bail may be filed and acted upon by 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.
6. While no bail was recommended by the Office of the City
Prosecutor, the penalty provided under R.A. 9208 as aforecited above is
neither death, reclusion perpetua nor life imprisonment but the penalty of
twenty (20) years and fine of not less than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) but not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
7. Thus, the accused should be entitled to bail as a matter or right.
In this light, the fundamental principle in applying
and interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the
accused;
8. In James Schulze v. Tullet Prebon (Philippines), Inc1., the
Supreme Court held that penal statutes are construed strictly against the
State and liberally in favor of the accused. When there is doubt on the
interpretation of criminal laws, all must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Since penal laws should not be applied mechanically, the Court must
determine whether their application is consistent with the purpose and
reason of the law.Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is
the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible
interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and
another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an
interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.2
1
G.R. No. 189158, January 11, 2017.
2
Supra, citing People v. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 8, 2015, ntestate Estate of
Manolita Gonzales V da. de Carungcong v. People, 626 Phil. 177, 200(2010).
2
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the
accused be admitted to bail pending the final resolution of his case in an
amount to be fixed by the Court.
ACCUSED further pray for such other relief and remedies just and
equitable under the premises.
Lucena City, 28 November 2018.
Counsel for the Accused
Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor
Lucena City
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 58
Office of the City Prosecutor
Lucena City
Please take notice that the foregoing motion will be submitted by the
undersigned counsel to this Honorable Court for its kind consideration and
approval on 4 December 2018 at 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
REY OLIVER S. ALEJANDRINO, DCL
