Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

RTC-BRANCH 36

SANTIAGO CITY ---o0o--PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff. - versus CARLOS DACQUEL, Accused. CRIMINAL CASES NO. 2568 For:

MURDER

x------------------------------x MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF Plaintiff by counsel and unto this honorable court, most respectfully avers: STATEMENT OF FACTS In this action, the plaintiff seeks for the denial of the petition for bail filed by the accused through counsel, who is charged for the crime of Murder. This case concerns the killing of one Joseph Jojo Capuccino at around ten o'clock in the evening of December 22, 2002 at Camacam Street, Calaocan, Santiago City. Prior to said incident, the victim, Joseph Capuccino together with three of his friends was having a conversation in front of Mrs. Feliza's store. After a while, he noticed the accused crossing the street, pointed to and identified him as Carlos Dacquel. He even told his companions that he was the one who attempted to kill him a few days ago. When Joseph went near the accused, the latter, without saying any words, shot him with his gun despite the victim raising both his hands. ISSUE 1. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to bail. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION The accused in this case cannot be admitted to bail because his brutal act in killing the victim falls under capital offenses, of which, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. It is also the position of the prosecution that the accused cannot be granted the privilege of bail because of the fact that he poses risk to the life of the eye witness, as he had warned the latter not to tell anybody what she knows, before he was incarcerated.

The applicable Rule in this case is Section 7 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court states that: Sec.7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. _ No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetuam or life imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. It is also worthy of note that in the case of Padilla v. CA, where the issue involved is whether Robin Padilla may post bail despite the fact that the charge against him is punishable by reclusion perpetua which is unbailable. The court cited the above provision in denying the application of Robin C. Padilla for bail when it found that the evidence of guilt was strong. In the instant case, the accused willfully shot the victim though the latter raised his hands and left. He was able to facilitate the killing and its escape for he sought and waited for the night to fall. As a gegneral rule, the accused cannot demand his right to bail if he is charged of capital offense. The grant of bail in this case is under the discretion of the presiding judge where the case is filed. Thus, it would be absurd if the trial court grants the application of the accused if a ruling precedent to this case has been laid down by the highest court of the land. Therefore with all due respect to the honorable court and under the premises aforementioned, the plaintiff maintains that the petition for bail filed by the accused through his counsel be denied. PRAYER Wherefore, premises considered, plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered as follows: 1. Deny the accused's application for bail; Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

ATTY. RGPPPPPPPP

Counsel for the Plaintiff MCLE No. 11111111111 December 31, 2012