Scribd
Upload
41 views3 pages

G.R. No. 220913

Uploaded by

FCM DHSVUSOL
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
41 views3 pages

G.R. No. 220913

Uploaded by

FCM DHSVUSOL
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

G.R. No.

220913 February 04, 2019

PADUA vs.PEOPLE

Ponente: PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

Juanito A. Tio (Tio), in his capacity as representative of Family Choice Grains Processing Center of
Cabatuan, Isabela filed a complaint for estafa against now petitioners Allen Padua (Padua), Emelita
Pimentel (Pimentel) and Dante Frialde (Frialde), as officials of Nviro Filipino Corporation (Nviro).

In the complaint, Tio accused petitioners of falsely claiming that they are in the business of power plant
construction when their actual and authorized line of business only involves manufacturing and selling
fertilizer. Tio claimed that petitioners obtained One Hundred Thirty Thousand Euros (€130,000.00) from
Family Choice allegedly for "expat fees," yet failed to remit the same to their supplier. Tio also alleged that
petitioners failed to make good of their promises to deliver the appropriate equipment and even
demanded an additional ₱23,618,401.00 despite being paid nearly ninety percent (90%) of the agreed
construction price. As a result of petitioners' swindling scheme, Tio claimed that Family Choice suffered
actual damages amounting to ₱16,388,253.90.

Petitioners, on the other hand, denied the allegations against them. They alleged that the filing of the
criminal cases was untimely and premature, and in violation of the provisions of their Memorandum of
Agreement. Nviro asserted that the construction project was done in good faith.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor found all the elements of the crime of estafa. Four (4) Informations dated
July 30, 2010 were docketed. Warrant of Arrest dated August 6, 2010 was issued. Four years after,
petitioners Padua and Pimentel filed an Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash Warrant
of Arrest and to Fix Bail). The trial court denied petitioners' omnibus motion. Petitioners filed a Joint
Motion for Reconsideration. The trial court denied the Joint motion for reconsideration. Petitioners filed a
Petition to the CA, which was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Orders of the court a quo finding petitioners as
not being entitled to bail despite being charged with bailable offenses

RULING:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, and ordered the trial
court to resolve the motion to quash and fix an amount of bail.Petitioners are entitled to bail as a matter of
right as they have not been charged with a capital offense. Estafa, which petitioners have been charged
with, has an imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which is still bailable

Further, custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not
required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor
constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. For the instant
case, albeit, at large, it must be clarified that petitioners' Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to
Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail) is not an application for bail, but rather petitioners are
questioning the court's jurisdiction and praying that the court fix the amount of bail because they believed
that their right to bail is a matter of right. They are not applying for bail, therefore, custody of the law, or
personal appearance is not required

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy