G.R. No. L-45266 and G.R. No. L-48450, August 6, 1979
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO PARDILLA, RUDY MANZANO, and REYNALDO PARDILLA, defendants-appellants. LEOPOLDO PARDILLA, RUDY MANZANO, and REYNALDO PARDILLA, petitioners, vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Leopoldo Pardilla, Rudy Manzano, and Reynaldo Pardilla were charged with Homicide for the killing of Alfredo Solinap, Sr. The information alleged conspiracy and intent to kill but did not specify any qualifying circumstance that would elevate the crime to Murder. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo convicted them of Murder, erroneously treating the alleged conspiracy as synonymous with evident premeditation, a qualifying circumstance. The court sentenced two accused to death and one to life imprisonment, cancelling their bail bonds and ordering their commitment.
The accused filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing they could only be convicted of Homicide as charged. The trial court denied this motion. They subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed, and the records were elevated for automatic review of the death penalty (G.R. No. L-45266). While that review was pending, they filed a separate petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. L-48450), praying for release on their original bail bonds pending the Supreme Court’s final resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail pending the review of their conviction, considering the trial court convicted them of Murder despite the information only charging Homicide.

RULING

Yes, the petitioners are entitled to bail. The Supreme Court, treating the habeas corpus petition as an incident in the automatic review and as a motion for bail, granted their release. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense graver than that charged in the information. The information specifically alleged Homicide and lacked any allegation of qualifying circumstances like evident premeditation, treachery, or cruelty necessary for a Murder conviction.
Since the gravest possible conviction based on the information is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code—a bailable offense—the petitioners have a right to bail as a matter of law pending appeal. The trial court’s error in convicting them of Murder and imposing non-bailable penalties did not lawfully deprive them of this right. Their continued detention under those circumstances was, for bail purposes, considered unjust. The Court emphasized equity and justice, disregarding procedural technicalities to immediately restore the petitioners’ liberty on bail while the main case on the merits of their conviction (G.R. No. L-45266) undergoes review. This ruling on bail is provisional and without prejudice to the final determination of their guilt or innocence for Homicide.