N. Bail - R114

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Justice Gabriel T. Ingles Notes Compilation

USC Center For Legal Aid Work 2013 172

PROCEEDINGS AFTER ISSUANCE/
IMPLEMENTATION OF WARRANT OF ARREST

a) Motion To Suspend Proceedings (Sections 6 and 7, Rule
111)
b) Bail (Rule 114)
c) Motion To Conduct Preliminary Investigation and/or
Reinvestigation(Sec. 7 par. 3 Rule 112)
d) Motion To Quash Warrant of Arrest(section 26 Rule 114)

a.) Motion To Suspend Proceedings (Sections 6 and 7, Rule
111)
SEC 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A
petition for suspension of the criminal action based
upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil
action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the
criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the
petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
action at any time before the prosecution rests. (6a)

b.) Bail (Rule 114)
SECTION 1. Bail defined.
Bail
1. Definition:
The security given for the release of a person in custody
of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman
2. Who furnishes the bail:
1. The person in custody whose release is sought, or
2. A bondsman
3. Purpose:
To guarantee said persons appearance before any
court

As a general rule, once a case is filed in court and there is
probable cause, the judge will issue a warrant. So the accused
will be detained but still presumed innocent. It is called
preventive detention. The accused is detained to ensure that he
will face the crime charged against him That is why if you are
convicted, that is already credited as advanced service under
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
But that will be too tedious. You are already detained, and you
are still presumed innocent. The remedy is you apply for bail
you post bail because bail is, as a rule, a constitutional right.
And what is the primary purpose of bail?
American jurisprudence says the purpose of bail is (a) to
combine the administration of criminal justice with the
convenience of a person accused but not yet proven guilty; (b)
to relieve the accused of imprisonment, and the State of burden
of keeping him, pending trial. (6 Am. Jur. 61)
Can you imagine without the provision on bail? There will be
thousands of people who are already in jail and all at the
expense of the government. So, we have to combine these two
the convenience of the accused and the convenience of the
State.
For the same reason, bail is also a remedy the moment a person
is under custody thru a warrantless arrest or even if not yet
criminally charged in court.
Since bail is the security for the release of a person under
custody of the law, it is evident that it is not intended to cover
the civil liability of the accused in the same criminal case.
The money deposited as bail, may however, be considered not
only as bail. It may be applied to the payment of fines and costs
while the excess if any shall be returned to the accused or to
whoever made the deposit (Sec. 14, R 14; A.M. No. 05-8-26 SC
Oct. 3, 2005)
The question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of
the criminal action, preventing him or her from eluding
punishment in the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its
denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that
depends on conviction by final judgment (Heirs of Sarah Marie
Palma Burgos v. CA and Johnny Co y Yu, GR No. 169711, Feb. 8,
2010).
When a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed
placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual
restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for
the commission of an offense. He must be detained in jail during
the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by
the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. All prisoners
whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence
cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or
occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in
detention (Pp v. Hon Maceda, 323 SCRA 45 cited in Trillanes IV v.
Pimentel, Sr., 556 SCRA 471).
The presumption of innocence is not a reason for the detained
accused to be allowed to hold office or practice his profession.
Such presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full
enjoyment of civil and political rights. (Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, Sr.)
Bail prior to arrest
Docena-Caspe v. Bugtas, 400 SCRA 37
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Question:
May an accused who has not been arrested be
granted bail?
Answer:
No. The right to bail can only be availed of by a person
who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty
and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a
petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be
curtailed.
Meaning of in custody of the law
People v. Gako, Jr., 348 SCRA 334
Question:
When is a person deemed to be in custody for the
purpose of bail application?
Answer:
When [a] he is arrested either by virtue of a warrant of
arrest issued pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 112, or even without a
warrant under Sec. 5, Rule 113 in relation to Sec. 7, Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court, or [b] he has voluntarily submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper
authorities.
What do you mean by in custody of law?
A: In custody of law may mean
1. physical or actual custody; or
2. constructive custody. (Paderanga vs. CA, 247
SCRA 41)

Constructive custody
Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633
Facts:
Accused was charged before the Sandiganbayan.
Without having been arrested and without actually physically
surrendering to the court, she posted bail stating that she be
considered as having placed herself under the jurisdiction of
the court as she was then in hospital. When later on the
Sandiganbayan issued a Hold Departure Order against her, she
claimed that said court had no jurisdiction to do so.

Issue:
Did the court validly acquire jurisdiction over accused?

Held:
It has been held that where after the filing of the
complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused
is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily
submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In
this case, accused is deemed to have voluntarily submitted
herself to the jurisdiction of the court upon the filing of her Motion
wherein she expressly sought leave that she be considered as
having placed herself under the jurisdiction of (the
Sandiganbayan) for purposes of the required trial and other
proceedings. Accused cannot now be heard to claim
otherwise for, by her own representations, she is effectively
estopped from asserting the contrary after she had earlier
recognized the jurisdiction of the court.

Paderanga v. People, 247 SCRA 241
FACTS:
This case originated in CDO. The accused was charged of
murder which is non-bailable. He did not want to be
arrested but actually, wanted to face the case only that he
wanted first to be released on bail. But how can he file a
petition for bail when he was not yet in custody? (In
custody, you have to surrender or you must be arrested.
What he wanted was that when he surrenders he can
already bail out.)
What happened? He entered the hospital, for a certain
illness then his lawyer filed a petition for bail before the RTC,
We are appearing for the accused for his petition for bail.
We would like to manifest that he is right now in the hospital.
Will you please consider him already in the custody of the
court?
Issue:
May a person charged with a capital offense who is
undergoing confinement in a hospital be admitted to bail even
before he is arrested or voluntarily surrenders?
Held:
It may be correct that accused had indeed filed his
motion for admission to bail before he was actually and
physically placed under arrest. He may, however, at that point
and in the factual ambience thereof, be considered as being
constructively and legally under custody. Thus, in the likewise
peculiar circumstances which attended the filing of his bail
application with the trial court, for purposes of the hearing
thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily submitted his
person to the custody of the law and necessarily, to the
jurisdiction of the trial court which thereafter granted bail as
prayed for. In fact, an arrest is made either by an actual restraint
of the arrestee or merely by his submission to the custody of the
person making the arrest. The latter mode may be exemplified
by the so-called house arrest or, in the case of military
offenders, by being confined to quarters or restricted to the
military camp area.
Exceptions to the rule that the applicant must be in custody of
the law
The exceptions are:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


1. Bail is required to guarantee the appearance of a material
witness under Sec. 14, Rule 119 (Trial); or
2. when bail is required to guarantee the appearance of a
prosecution witness in cases where there is a substitution of the
information (Sec. 14, Rule 110).
Waiver of right to bail
Express waiver
People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130
Facts:
While accused was detained, he entered into an
agreement with the government that his petition for habeas
corpus will be withdrawn and that he will remain in custody,
whereas two of his co-detainees will be released immediately.
Later, however, after his companions were released, accused
filed a petition for bail.
Issue:
Can the right to bail be waived?
Held:
Yes. Rights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall
naturally into 2 classes: (a) those in which the state, as well as the
accused, is interested; and (b) those which are personal to the
accused, which are in the nature of personal privileges. Those of
the first class cannot be waived; those of the second may be.
The right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can
be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and
whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person
with a right recognized by law.
Implied waiver
People v. Manes, 303 SCRA 231
Facts:
Accused was charged with murder. He applied for bail
but the judge set the case for trial without acting on his
application. He was convicted and on appeal he contended
that the judge committed a serious error of law when he tried
the case without resolving the application for bail.
Issue:
Is the contention of accused correct?
Held:
No. Trial proceeded without the accused calling the
attention of the trial court to his unresolved petition. It was only
on appeal that he raised the issue. Thus, for failure to raise the
issue at the earliest opportune time, accused is deemed to have
waived the right to bail. In addition, the issue has been rendered
academic by the conviction of accused. When an accused is
charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment or death, and the evidence of guilt is strong, bail
must be denied.
Bail for military men
Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80
Issue:
Are military men charged before the court martial for
violations of the Articles of War entitled to bail?
Held:
No. The right to bail has traditionally not been
recognized and is not available in the military, as an exception
to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. The justification
for this exception is that the unique structure of the military
should be enough reason to exempt military men from the
constitutional coverage on the right to bail. Aside from structural
peculiarity, it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate within
the framework of democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary
use of firearms by the government for the discharge of their
duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues
collected from the people.
Bail in extradition
Government v. Purganan, 389 SCRA 623
Facts:
The Government of the United States of America,
through the Department of Justice, filed with the RTC a petition
for the extradition of Mark Jimenez who was facing various
criminal charges in Florida. Petitioner prayed for his immediate
arrest, and the judge set it for hearing. Thereafter, the judge
issued an order for his arrest and fixed bail for his temporary
liberty at P1 million.
Issue:
In extradition proceedings, is the prospective extraditee
entitled to post bail while the extradition proceedings are
pending?
Held:
No. Extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature.
By using the term before conviction, it is apparent that the
right to bail in Sec. 13, Art. III of the Constitution does not apply to
extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not
render judgments of conviction or acquittal. Moreover, the right
to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favour of
accused who is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. It follows, therefore, that the provision
on bail will not apply to extradition where the presumption of
innocence is not in issue. That the offenses for which he is sought
to be extradited are bailable in the United States is no argument.
Extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial
for the offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail
before the US court, not before the extradition court.
The Court however, did not hold that bail never applies in
extradition cases. It instead explained that "x x x bail is not a
matter of right in extradition cases. However, the judiciary has
the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion and
tyranny, as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and
enforce constitutional rights. Furthermore, we believe that the
right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of
basic fairness to extradites. Indeed, the right to due process
extends to the "life, liberty or property" of every person. It is
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


"dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its
application."
In establishing an exception to the "no bail rule", the Court
reasoned:
"Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe
and so hold that, after a potential extradite has been arrested or
placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for
and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing
showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a
flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist
special humanitarian and compelling circumstances, including,
as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the
requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition
cases therein."
Bail now applicable in extradition proceedings
In Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v.
Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470, April 19, 2007, the Supreme Court
reversed its ruling in Purganan after viewing the issue in the light
of the modern trend in international law placing primacy on the
worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights.
Clearly, explained the Court, "the right of a prospective
extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in
the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines
concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human
rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of
human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right
to liberty of every individual is not impaired."
Bail in deportation proceedings
Aliens in deportation proceedings, as a rule, have no inherent
right to bail" (Prentis v. Manoogian, 16 F. 2d. 422) and it has been
held that a person arrested or detained cannot be released on
bail, unless that right is granted expressly by law (Bengzon v.
Ocampo, et al., 84 Phil. 611)
Section 37(9)(e) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 (Com.
Act No. 613, as amended) provides that:
"Any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be
released under bond or under such other conditions as may be
imposed by the Commissioner of Immigration."
This provision confers upon the Commissioner of Immigration that
power and discretion to grant bail in deportation proceedings,
but does not grant to aliens the right to be released on bail. The
use of the word 'may' in said provision indicates that the grant of
bail is merely permissive and not mandatory or obligatory on the
part of the Commissioner. The exercise of the power is wholly
discretionary...The determination as to the propriety of allowing
an alien, subject to deportation under the Immigration Act, to
be released temporarily on bail, as well as the conditions
thereof, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner,
and not in the courts of justice. The reason for this is that the
courts do not administer immigration laws" (Go Tian Chai v.
Commissioner of Immigration, L-20645, Sept. 22, 1966).
As deportation proceedings partake of the nature of a criminal
action, the constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invoked
by aliens in said proceedings (Ong Hee Sang v. Com. of
Immigration, L-9700, 4 SCRA 442).
The right to bail when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended-
Some political law basic questions: When there is invasion or
rebellion, the Constitution authorizes the Commander-In-Chief to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. You can be
arrested on suspicion that you are engaged in rebellion even if
there is no warrant and there is no case. Q: Are you entitled to
bail? Does the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus also carry with it the suspension of the right to bail?
There is a direct provision in the Constitution, Article 3 Section 13
which says that the right to bail exists and is not suspended by
the suspension of the privilege.
Forms of bail:
1. Corporate surety,
2. Property bond,
3. Cash deposit, or
4. Recognizance

SEC. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements.
Conditions of the Bail
1. Effectivity:
1. The undertaking shall be effective upon approval
2. It shall remain in force at all stages of the case until
promulgation of the judgment of the RTC irrespective of whether
the case was:
1. Originally filed in the RTC, or
2. Appealed to the RTC
3. It shall lose its effectivity if cancelled, whether or not
judgment has been rendered by the RTC

So, for example in the MTC, you are arrested, and convicted so
you will appeal to the RTC. What will happen to your bail?
It will still be effective because under paragraph [a], your bail is
effective up to the RTC.
Another example: You were convicted at the RTC and you want
to go to the CA, are you still entitled to bail?
The answer is MAYBE. This is one instance where bail is
discretionary.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


But assuming that the court will say, OK, you are entitled to bail
on appeal. What happens now to your bail?
Under the present rules the GENERAL RULE is you get another bail
bond because your bail is only up to the level of the RTC. (This is
back to the 1964 rules.) The 1985 Rules, where bail continues up
to the CA no longer apllies. Now, you have to ask for another
bail bond if you want to go further to the CA.
The bail bond posted by the accused can only be used
during the 15-day period to appeal and not during the entire
period of appeal. This is consistent with Section 2(a) which
provides that the bail "shall be effective upon approval and
remain in force at all stages of the case, unless sooner
cancelled, until the promulgation of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court..." This rule is a departure from the old rules
which provided that the bail shall be effective and remain in
force at all stages of the case until its full determination, and thus
effective even during the period of appeal. For the accused to
continue his provisional liberty on the same bail bond, consent of
the bondsman is necessary (Maguddatu v. CA 326 SCRA 362;
People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283).
A condition in a bail bond states that the sureties do not
undertake to deliver the person of the accused if the reading of
the sentence is postponed to a later date, nor do they consent
to such extension. Is this condition valid?
YES, the condition is valid, because it is not contrary to law or
public policy, and, besides, it lightens the obligation of the
bondsmen, which is allowable. Conditions restricting liability on
the bond when accepted by the court and not contrary to
public policy are valid. (People vs. Wong Pun, 48 Phil. 713)
2. Obligation of accused out on bail
He shall appear before the court whenever required by
the court or these Rules
3. Effect of failure of accused to appear at the trial without
justification and despite due notice:
1. It shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present
thereat, and
2. The trial may proceed in absentia.
(Note that there is another effect because under Sec. 23, Rule
114, the bondsman may arrest the accused for the purpose of
surrendering the accused. The bondsman may also cause the
accused to be arrested by a police officer or any other person
of suitable age and discretion upon written authority endorsed
on a certified copy of the undertaking.)
Presence of accused
Where Rules require presence
Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321
Question:
In what instances may an accused not be allowed to
waive his presence in court?
Answer:
In certain stages of the proceedings, an accused on
bail or tried in absencia may be required to appear, to wit: (a) at
arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt, (b)
during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes, and
(c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense,
in which case the accused may appear by counsel or
representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence
is required and cannot be waived.
(Under any of the foregoing situations, absence of the accused
can lead to the forfeiture of the bond and issuance of a warrant
of arrest.)
Presence during trial
Marcos v. Ruiz, 213 SCRA 177
Issue:
May the court order the forfeiture of the bail bond of
the accused upon his failure to appear for trial where his
presence is not specifically required by the Rules or the court?
Held:
No. One other condition for the granting of bail, set
forth in Sec. 2(b), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, is that the
accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so
required by the court or the Rules of Court. A bail bond may be
forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is
specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and,
despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the
court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as
so required. There is no showing that the court had specifically
required the bonding company to produce the body of
accused on the particular date.

Arraignment as condition for bail
Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321
Issue:
May the court set as a condition that the bail bond of
the accused will only be approved after he is arraigned?

Held:
No. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his
arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to
choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his
release on bail because until his motion to quash can be
resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the
filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once
and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly
undermine the constitutional right of the accused not to be put
on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to
charge him with a crime and his right to bail.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


In Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148468, January 28, 2003,
the Court clarified that its pronouncement in Lavides should not
be taken to mean that the hearing on a petition for bail should
at all times precede arraignment, because the rule is that a
person deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary
surrender may apply for bail as soon as he is deprived of his
liberty, even before a complaint or information is filed against
him. The Court cautioned that its pronouncements in Lavides
should be understood in the light of the fact that the accused in
said case filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to quash the
informations filed against him. Hence, the ruling that to condition
the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to
place him in a position where he has to choose between filing a
motion to quash and foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so
that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released
on bail would undermione his constitutional right not to be put
on trial except upon a valid complaint or information sufficient to
charge him with a crime and his right to bail.
In the same case the Court also ruled that there is no
inconsistency between an application for bail and the filing of a
motion to quash. These two reliefs have objectives which are
not necessarily antithetical to each other. Certainly, the right of
an accused to seek provisional liberty when charged with an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, or when charged with an offense punishable by
such penalties but after due hearing, evidence of his guilt is
found not to be strong, does not preclude his right to assail the
validioty of the Information charging him with such offense. It
must be conceded, however, that if a motion to quash a
criminal complaint or Information on the ground that the same
does not charge any offense is granted and the case is
dismissed and the accused is ordered released, the petition for
bail of an accused may become moot and academic.
Trial in absentia
Now suppose you failed to appear in court without justification.
Like for example, you escaped, you jumped bail and
disappeared? What will happen to the case?
The proceedings will continue according to paragraph [c]
because that would be a waiver of your right.
How is it called?
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA pursuant to Section 14, 2nd paragraph, Article
2 of the Constitution.
When accused is required to appear-
Paragraph [b] you will appear before the proper court
whenever required by the court or these rules. Normally, when is
a person required by the court to appear?
Generally, 1) ARRAIGNMENT or 2) PROMULGATION especially if
conviction. But there are others for example, lets read Rule 115
(Rights of the Accused) Section 1 [c]:
(c) To be present and defend in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The
accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, 3) unless
his presence is specifically ordered by the court for
purposes of identification. x x x x x x
A bail bond required the bondsmen to pay the fine of the
accused, in addition to the usual condition. Is this additional
condition valid?
NO. The additional condition is void because it made the
obligation of the bondsmen more onerous, in violation of the
constitutional provision that no excessive bail shall be required
orthat additional conditions may be imposed because it might
prevent or render it impossible for the accused to secure his
liberty during the trial. (Bandoy vs. CFI of Laguna, 14 Phil. 620)
When the bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court:
For execution of the final judgment
Contents
1. The original papers shall state:
1. the full name and address of the accused,
2. the amount of the undertaking, and
3. the conditions required by Sec. 2
2. What must be attached to the bail --- photographs of the
accused:
1. passport size,
2. taken within the last 6 months,
3. showing his face, left and right profiles

SEC. 3. No release or transfer except on court order or
bail. No person under detention by legal process shall
be released or transferred except upon order of the
court or when he is admitted to bail. (3a)
Exception
In Ladlad, et al., vs. Senior State Prosecutor Velasco et
al, G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and Liza Maza, et al., vs. Raul
Gonzales, et al., GR Nos. 172074-76, the Supreme Court
declared, in part:
Indeed in the DOJ Circular No.61, dated
21 September 1993, the initial duty of the
inquest officer is to determine if the arrest of
the detained person was made in
accordance with the provisions of paragraphs
(a) and (b) of section 5, Rule 113. If the arrest
was not properly effected, the inquest officer
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


should proceed under Section 9 of Circular
No. 61 which provides:
Where Arrest Not Properly Effected.
Should the Inquest Officer find that the arrest
was not made in accordance with the Rules,
he shall:
a) Recommend the release of the
person arrested or detained;
b) Note down the disposition on the
referral document;
c) Prepare a brief memorandum
indicating the reasons for the action
taken; and
d) Forward the same, together with the
record of the case, to the City or
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate
action.
Where the recommendation for the
release of the detained person is
approved by the city or Provincial
Prosecutor but the evidence on
hand warrant the conduct of a
regular preliminary investigation, the
order of release shall be served on
the officer having custody of said
detainee and shall direct the said
officer to serve upon the detainee
the subpoena or notice of
preliminary investigation, together
wigth the copies of the charge sheet
or complaint, affidavit or sworn
statements of the complainant and
his witnesses and other supporting
evidence.
For the failure of Beltrans panel of
inquest prosecutors to comply with
Section 7, Rule 112 in relation to
Section 5, Rule 113 and DOJ Circular
No. 61, we declare Beltrans inquest
void. Beltran would have been
entitled to a preliminary investigation
had he not asked the trial court to
make a judicial determination of
probable cause, which effectively
took the place of such proceeding.
When City or Provincial Prosecutor can issue an order of
release
Note that the City or Provincial Prosecutor in Ladlad
can issue an order of release if during inquest it is found
that the arrest was not proper or if the evidence on
hand warrant the conduct of a preliminary
investigation and during the said preliminary
investigation.
Once the accused is already charged in court, then
Section 3 applies and only the court can authorize the
release or transfer of the accused.

Now, we go to these important issues on bail:
1. When bail is a matter of right;
2. When bail is discretionary;
3. When bail is not available.

As a general rule, bail is a matter of right. That is a constitutional
right. And Section 4 tells us what are the instances when bail is a
matter of right.

BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception.. (4a)
When Bail is a Matter of Right
1. BEFORE conviction by the MTC;
2. AFTER conviction by the MTC;
3. BEFORE conviction by the RTC and the imposable penalty for
the offense is NOT:
1. death,
2. reclusion perpetua, or
3. life imprisonment;
4. BEFORE conviction by the RTC:
1. for an offense punishable by:
1. death,
3. life imprisonment
2. But the evidence of guilt is NOT strong

Amendment of law
Al-Ghoul v. CA, 299 SCRA 149
Facts:
Accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms
and explosives under Sec.1 and 3 of P.D. 1866. The imposable
penalty for the offense was from reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua and his application for bail was denied on the ground
that evidence of guilt was strong. Later, P.D. 1866 was amended
by R.A. 8294 which lowered the penalty for the offense to from
prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
Issue:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Should accused be now admitted to bail?
Held:
Yes. Under Administrative Circular 12-94 [Sec. 4, Rule
114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure] bail is a matter of
right before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Where bail is a matter of right and prior absconding and
forfeiture is not excepted from such right, bail must be allowed
irrespective of such circumstance. The existence of a high
degree of probability that the defendant will abscond confers
upon the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond
to such an amount as would reasonably tend to assure the
presence of the defendant when it is wanted, such amount to
be subject, of course, to the other provision that excessive bail
shall not be required. The recourse of the judge is to fix a higher
amount and not to cancel the same. (San Miguel v. Maceda,
AM No. RTJ-03-1749, April 4, 2007).

Procedure when bail is not a matter of right-

Under the law, when a person is charged in court for a non-
bailable offense like murder, what is the procedure under
Section 8 if he wants to post bail?

He must file an application or petition for bail. And that is when
the prosecution will have to present evidence immediately to
prove that the evidence of guilt is strong.

Suppose after hearing for the petition for bail, the court is
convinced that the evidence of guilt is not strong and the court
said so, what happens now to bail?
Bail becomes a matter of right. (People vs. Donato, 198 SCRA
130)

PEOPLE vs. DONATO,198 SCRA 130

HELD: If the offense charged is punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a
matter of discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of
guilt is strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is
determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also
becomes a matter of right.

The exercise by the court of its discretionary power to grant
bail to an accused charged with a capital offense thus
depends on whether the evidence of guilt is strong. The
court should first conduct a hearing, whether summary or
otherwise in the discretion of the court, to determine the
existence of strong evidence or the lack of it. This hearing is
to enable the judge to make an intelligent assessment of
the evidence presented and merely to determine the
weight of evidence for purposes of bail. In a bail hearing,
the court does not sit to try the merits of the case (People v.
Plaza GR No. 176933, Oct. 2, 2009).

BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION

SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary.
When Bail is Discretionary
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by:
1. death
3. life imprisonment,
2. Provided it is shown that:
1. The accused:
1. is NOT a recidivist,
2. is NOT a quasi-recidivist,
3. is NOT a habitual delinquent, or
4. has NOT committed the crime aggravated
by the circumstance of
reiteration;
2. The accused has NOT:
1. escaped from legal confinement,
2. evaded sentence, or
3. violated the conditions of his bail without
valid justification;
3. The accused did NOT commit the offense while
under:
1. probation,
2. parole, or
3. conditional pardon;
4. The circumstances of the accuseds case does NOT
indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
5. There is NO undue risk that the accused may commit
another crime
during the pendency of the appeal.
Effect when Bail is Discretionary and the Accused files a Notice
of Appeal
1. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the
RTC:
If the original record has not yet been transmitted to
the appellate court
2. The application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the
appellate court:
If the decision of the RTC convicting the accused
changed the nature of the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


offense from non-bailable to bailable
3. If the proper court grants the application for bail:
1. The accused may be allowed to continue on
provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the
same bail,
2. However, this must be with the consent of the
bondsman
4. When it is the RTC which resolves the application for bail:
1. The appellate court may review the resolution of the
RTC:
1. motu propio, or
2. on motion of any party, and
2. Notice must be given to the adverse party

Where penalty exceeds six years
Obosa v. CA, 266 SCRA 281
Facts:
Obosa was charged with 2 counts of murder, a capital
offense. He applied for bail but the judge proceeded with the
trial without acting on his application. After trial Obosa was
convicted only of 2 counts of homicide, a non-capital offense.
Issue:
On appeal, is he entitled to bail as a matter of right?
Held:
No. Obosa applied for bail after the effectivity of
Administrative Circular No. 12-94. Under the Circular, if the court
imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not
more than 20 years, then bail is a matter of discretion, except
when any of the circumstances mentioned in Sec. 5[3] of the
Circular is present, in which case bail has to be denied. Since
Obosa was convicted of 2 counts of homicide, his bail
application is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
Actually, several circumstances found in the Circular justify the
denial of bail, except that a retroactive application of the
Circular is barred as it would be unfavorable to Obosa.
Be that as it may, the rules on bail prior to the effectivity
of A.C. 12-94 does not favor him either. In accordance with
previous decisions, when Obosa appealed he opened the
whole case for review so that the possibility of conviction upon
the original charge of murder is ever present. Likewise, since the
prosecution has previously demonstrated that evidence of guilt
is strong, such determination subsists on appeal, despite
conviction for a lesser offense, since such determination is for the
purpose of resolving whether to grant or deny bail and does not
have any bearing on whether Obosa will ultimately be acquitted
or convicted of the charge.

Now, the second sentence is new:

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. (Section 5, first paragraph, second
sentence)

This is a reversal of a ruling in the case of

OBOSA vs. COURT OF APPEALS,266 SCRA 281, January 16,
1997

FACTS: The court convicted the accused for homicide. So
the penalty is reclusion temporal. The accused said: Your
honor, we intend to appeal this case but may we be
allowed to post bail while the appeal is going on. The court
said, Granted! [discretionary man!]. We will fix your bail at
P50,000. Two days before, the accused filed a notice of
appeal. After filing the notice of appeal, he applied for bail
which was approved by the court.

ISSUE: Can the court approve the bail?

HELD: NO, because when the accused filed his notice of
appeal, from that very moment the court has lost jurisdiction
over the case. When the court fixed the bail, he has must
not yet file his notice of appeal, so the court has the
jurisdiction to approve and fix the bail. The trouble is he
immediately filed a notice of appeal before his motion to
post bail so the court has no more jurisdiction to approve
the bail. It should have been approved by the Court of
Appeals.

Obviously, the SC wanted to change it. The application for bail
may still be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the
filing of a notice that is a modification of the Obosa ruling
provided it has not transmitted the original record. Based on the
Obosa ruling, once the notice of appeal is filed, the trial court
has no more jurisdiction to act on the application for bail.

But NOW under the NEW RULES, it is still allowed even if there
is already a notice of appeal on the condition that the records
are still with the RTC. If the records are already in the appellate
court, you better apply for bail before the Court of Appeals.

Now the next sentence

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.
(Section 5, first paragraph, last sentence)

This is also a recognition and modification of the ruling of Obosa
vs. CA, supra.

In the case of Obosa, the accused was charged with murder
non-bailable. But after the trial the court convicted him only for
homicide, a lesser offense. And homicide is bailable but
discretionary in the court. If he was convicted for murder,he
loses his right. But he was convicted for homicide. So he applied
for bail. And the court granted the bail. And the SC said the trial
court should not grant bail because the accused is appealing.
For all you know on appeal, the appellate court may reinstate
the original charge for murder because when you appeal, the
whole case is open for review. So, because of the possibility that
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


the penalty of murder would be imposed, then there should be
no bail. That was the ruling of Obosa vs. CA.

Now, of course it is now modified in the sense that, bail
could be granted in that situation because he was charged with
a non-bailable offense but found guilty of bailable offense.
However, if there is any court which should grant the bail, it
should be the CA and not the trial court. So these are new
provisions which were somehow taken from the ruling in Obosa
which is also now modified. That is the history of that provision.

Now let us go to the second paragraph:

Should the court grant the application, the 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. (Section
5)

This is more or less an exception to Section 2[a]. When you are
charged in the RTC and you post bail, the bail is only valid in the
RTC. If you want to appeal, and the court grants bail on appeal,
you have to post another bail.

But this provision grants the court the authority to say, Alright,
your bail which you posted here will continue subject to the
consent of the bondsman. That is now the condition.

The bondsman must be heard because the accused is already
convicted and might jump bail.

Effect of conviction
Magguddatu v. CA, 326 SCRA 362
Issue:
While the conviction is on appeal, may accused be
allowed to enjoy provisional liberty under the bail bonds they
posted during trial?

Held:
Under Sec. 5, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
court has the discretion whether or not to allow accused to
continue on provisional liberty under the same bail bond posted
during trial. The bail bond that accused previously posted can
only be used during the 15-day period to appeal and not during
the entire period of appeal. This is consistent with Sec. 2(a) of
Rule 114 which provides that the bail shall be effective upon
approval and remain in force at all stages of the case, unless
sooner cancelled, until the promulgation of the judgment of the
RTC, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or
appealed to it. This amendment, introduced by SC
Administrative Circular 12-94 is a departure from the old rules
which then provided that bail shall be effective and remain in
force at all stages of the case until its full determination, and thus
even during the period of appeal. Moreover, under the present
rule, for accused to continue his provisional liberty on the same
bail bond during the period to appeal, consent of the
bondsman is necessary.
Let us go now to the next sentence:

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 accuse, 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
(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. (5a)

Let us go back to the basics:

What is the jurisdiction of the RTC?

When he penalty imposable is 6 years and 1 day up to death.

If the penalty is prision mayor to reclusion temporal [6 yrs and 1
day to 20 years] bail could be granted on appeal but it is
discretionary. However, even if the bail is granted the
prosecution can inform the court that the accused who was
found guilty of homicide and granted bail is actuallys a recidivist,
or etc or any of the conditions mentioned in [a] [e]. The court
will now cancel the bail.

So bail is discretionary provided it will not fall under [a], [b], [c],
[d], or [e]. If you are a recidivist; or a habitual delinquent; or
have previously escaped from a confinement; or have
committed an offense while under probation, parole or
conditional pardon; or when the circumstances of the case
indicates the probability of flight (there is a risk of flight); or there
is an undue risk that the you might commit another crime during
the pendency of the appeal, the court will not grant the bail. If
the court has already granted, the bail will be cancelled. Take
note of that.

When is bail discretionary?
Based on that provision, after conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


imprisonment, provided the case does not fall under Section 5,
third paragraph [a]-[e] of the same law because once the case
falls under any of these, no bail even if it is a matter of discretion.

In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant
sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment for
more than six years, the discretionary nature of the grant of bail
pending appeal does not mean that bail should automatically
be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the
third paragraph of Sec. 5 (Jose Antonio Leviste v. CA, et al., GR
No. 189122 March 17, 2010)
The third paragraph of Section 5 applies to two scenarios
where the penalty imposed on the appellant applying for bail is
imprisonment exceeding six years. The first scenario deals with
circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph not being
present. The second scenario contemplates the existence of at
least one of the said circumstances. In the first situation, bail is a
matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, if none of the
circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraph os Sec. 5 is
present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny
bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be denied
even if the bail-negating circumstances in the 3rd paragraph of
Section 5 are absent. On the other hand, in the second situation,
the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion, that is,
to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated
circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other
option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Thus, a
finding that none of the said circumstances is present will not
automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding will simply
authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion
approach. (Leviste vs. CA)
The appelllant has no right to be freed on bail pending his
appeal from the trial court's judgment where his conviction
carries a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years and there is
a justification for the cancellation of his bail pursuant to the 3rd
paragraph of Section 5 (b), (d) and (e) of Rule 114. The
inescusable non-appearance in court of the appellant not only
violated the condition of his bail that he "shall appear" before
the court "whenever required" by the court or the Rules. It also
showed the probability that he might flee or commit another
crime while released on bail (Chua vs. CA GR No. 140842, April
12, 2007).

Section 4 governs when bail is a matter of right. Section 4, is
absolute even if you are a recidivist.

CASE: The accused was charged with homicide, there was no
conviction yet. And then bail. He jumped bail! But he was
arrested again. When arrested he again posted bail. After a
few months, he jumped bail again then rearrested. And then he
applied for bail for the third time. This time, thye judge said no for
jumping bail twice already. I will not grant you bail. And he
questioned it before the court. Is the denial of bail correct
because of the past record of the accused?

The SC said NO because the bail is a matter of right. He falls
under Section 4 there. There is no conviction yet. Even if he
jumps bail 100 times you cannot deny him bail for as long as the
crime is not punishable by perpetua to death. (Sy Guan vs.
Amparo, 79 Phil. 670; People vs. Alano, 81 Phil. 19)

What is the remedy to this kind of accused?
Increase the amount of bail.

Previous abscondence or escape is not a ground for the denial
of the bail; it merely gives the court discretion to increase the
amount of the bond as will reasonably tend to assure the
presence of the accused. (Sy Guan vs. Amparo, 79 Phil. 670;
People vs. Alano, 81 Phil. 19)

Section 5 governs a situation when bail is a matter of discretion.
This is when the court needs to determine the circumstances of
recidivism etc, to determine whether bail should be granted or
not. Note that the accused here is convicted for an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
This is another compelling reason why a hearing of a petition for
bail is necessary.

WHEN BAIL should be DENIED

SEC. 6. Capital offense defined. A capital offense is
an offense which, under the law existing at the time of
its commission and of the application for admission to
bail, may be punished with death. (6a)
Definition of Capital Offense
An offense which may be punished with Death:
1. At the time of its commission, and
2. At the time of the application for admission to bail
Note: The imposition of the death penalty is now prohibited by
RA 9346 enacted into law on June 24, 2006. Section 2 of said law
provides that "in lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be
imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetual, when the law violated
makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised
Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does
not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code."
Take note that the crime is punishable by DEATH not only at the
time of its commission but also at the time of the application for
bail. The law uses the conjunction and. RA 7659 gives us a list
of capital offenses.

In People vs. Bon, GR No. 166401, Oct. 30, 2004, the Court
stressed that the debarring of the death penalty through RA
9346 did not correspondingly declassify those crimes previously
catalogued as "heinous". The amendatory effects of Ra 9346
extend only to the application of the death penalty but not to
the definition or classification of crimes. True, the penalties for
heinous crimes have been downgraded under the aegis of the
new law. Still, what remains extant is the recognition by law that
such crimes, by their abhorrent nature, constitute a special
category by themselves. Accordingly, RA 9346 does not serve as
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


basis for the reduction of the civil indemnity and other damages
that adhere to heinous crimes."

Evidence of mitigating circumstances when offense charged is
capital
People v. IAC, 147 SCRA 219
Issue:
In determining whether the offense is capital, may the
court take into consideration the presence of mitigating and
aggravating circumstances?
Held:
No. An offense is capital, if it may be punished by
death under both the law prevailing at the time of its commission
and that prevailing at the time of the application for bail, even if
after conviction a penalty less than death is imposed. The
criterion to determine whether the offense charged is capital is
the penalty provided by the law regardless of the attendant
circumstances. The rationale of the provision lies in the difficulty
and impracticability of determining the nature of the offense on
the basis of the penalty actually imposable. Otherwise, the test
will require consideration not only of evidence showing
commission of the crime but also evidence of the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances. Thus, there has to be not only a
complete trial but the trial court must also already render a
decision in the case. This defeats the purpose of bail, which is to
entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending trial.

Evidence of minority
Bravo v. Borja, Jr., 134 SCRA 466
Issue:
Where the accused who is charged with a capital
offense is a minor, is he entitled to bail as a matter of right even if
the evidence of guilt is strong?
Held:
Yes. Where it has been established without objection
that accused is a minor, it follows that, if convicted, he would be
given the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law,
which effectively rules out the death penalty. The Constitution
withholds the guaranty of bail from one who is accused of a
capital offense where the evidence of guilt is strong. The obvious
reason is that one who faces a probable death sentence has a
particularly strong temptation to flee. This reason does not hold
where accused has been established without objection to be a
minor who by law cannot be sentenced to death.

SEC.7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable.
When bail shall be denied
1. of an offense punishable by:
1. death,
3. life imprisonment, and
2. The evidence of guilt is strong;
Indispensable requirements:
1. there must be a hearing Basco v. Rapatalo, 269 SCRA
229; Zuno v. Cabebe, 444 SCRA 389).
2. Evidence of guilt must be strong;
3. Prosecution must be given full opportunity to present
evidence (People v. Dacudao, 170 SCRA 489; People v.
Calo, GR No. 88531, June 18, 1990).

2. AFTER conviction by the RTC, pending appeal, of a offense
punishable by:
1. death,

3. AFTER conviction by the RTC of an offense with an imposable
penalty of imprisonment of more than 6 years but not exceeding
20 years, and it is shown that:
1. The accused:
1. is a recidivist,
2. is a quasi- recidivist,
3. is a habitual delinquent, or
4. has committed the crime aggravated by
the circumstances of
reiteration;
2. The accused has:
3. The accused committed the offense while under:
1. probation,
2. parole, or
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


4. The circumstances of the accuseds case indicates
the probability of flight
if released on bail; or
5. There is undue risk that the accused may commit
another crime during
the pendency of the appeal.

Challenging of order granting bail
Pobre v. CA, 463 SCRA 50
Question:
Where the court erroneously allows an accused
charged with a capital offense to post bail, may its order be
challenged by certiorari at anytime considering that the Rules
provides that no person charged with a capital offense shall be
admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal
prosecution?

Answer:
No. It is true that under Rule 114, Sec. 7 of the Rules of
Court, an accused charged with a capital offense is not entitled
to bail at any time during trial when the evidence of guilt is
strong. It does not mean however that since the accused is not
entitled to bail at any stage of the trial, a grant thereof can be
questioned any time and without regard to the period of filing
provided by the Rules. An order granting bail is interlocutory and
when it is issued with grave abuse of discretion a special civil
action can be considered an appropriate remedy. However,
Rule 65, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court prescribes a period of 60
days within which to file a special civil action for certiorari.

Bail while conviction is on appeal
Padilla v. CA, 260 SCRA 155
Facts;
Accused was convicted by the RTC of violation of P.D.
1866 and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 17 years 4
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal to 21 years of reclusion
perpetua. He appealed to the CA, but judgment was rendered
affirming his conviction.
Issue:
Is accused entitled to bail pending review of his
conviction by the Supreme Court?

Held:
No. If an accused who is charged with a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court
and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter
of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part
of the court. In this case, accused was convicted of a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua. Therefore, we find accused
not entitled to bail as his conviction clearly imports that the
evidence of his guilt is strong. And contrary to his asseveration, a
summary hearing for his bail application for the sole purpose of
determining whether or not evidence is strong is unnecessary.
Indeed, the extensive trial before the RTC and the appeal before
the CA are more than sufficient in accomplishing the purpose for
which a summary hearing for bail application is designed.
Summary
When Bail is a Matter of Right
1. BEFORE conviction by the MTC;
2. AFTER conviction by the MTC pending approval;
3. BEFORE conviction by the RTC and the imposable penalty for
the offense is NOT:
1. death,
1. for an offense punishable by:
1. death,
3. life imprisonment
2. But the evidence of guilt is NOT strong

When Bail is Discretionary
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by:
1. death
3. life imprisonment,
2. Provided it is shown that:
1. The accused:
1. is NOT a recidivist,
2. is NOT a quasi-recidivist,
3. is NOT a habitual delinquent, or
4. has NOT committed the crime aggravated
by the circumstance of
reiteration;
2. The accused has NOT:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


3. The accused did NOT commit the offense while
under:
1. probation,
2. parole, or
4. The circumstances of the accuseds case does NOT
indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
5. There is NO undue risk that the accused may commit
another crime
during the pendency of the appeal.

Effect when Bail is Discretionary and the Accused files a Notice
of Appeal
1. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the
RTC:
If the original record has not yet been transmitted to
the appellate court
2. The application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the
appellate court:
If the decision of the RTC convicting the accused
changed the nature of the
offense from non-bailable to bailable
3. If the proper court grants the application for bail:
1. The accused may be allowed to continue on
provisional liberty during the
pendency of the appeal under the same bail,
2. However, this must be with the consent of the
bondsman
4. When it is the RTC which resolves the application for bail:
1. The appellate court may review the resolution of the
RTC:
1. motu propio, or
2. on motion of any party, and
2. Notice must be given to the adverse party

When bail shall be denied
1. of an offense punishable by:
1. death,
3. life imprisonment, and
2. The evidence of guilt is strong;
2. AFTER conviction by the RTC, pending appeal, of a offense
punishable by:
1. death,

3. AFTER conviction by the RTC of an offense with an imposable
penalty of imprisonment of more than 6 years but not exceeding
20 years, and it is shown that:
1. The accused:
1. is a recidivist,
2. is a quasi- recidivist,
3. is a habitual delinquent, or
4. has committed the crime aggravated by
the circumstances of
reiteration;
2. The accused has:
3. The accused committed the offense while under:
1. probation,
2. parole, or
4. The circumstances of the accuseds case indicates
the probability of flight
if released on bail; or
5. There is undue risk that the accused may commit
another crime during
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


the pendency of the appeal.

SEC. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. At the
hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who
is in custody for the commission of an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of
showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence
presented during the bail hearing shall be considered
automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion
of either party, the court may recall any witness for
additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside
the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify. (8a)
Procedure and Requirements in the Application for Bail:
1. An application for bail is filed by a person who is in custody for
the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment;
2. There must be a hearing to determine as to whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong;
3. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the evidence
of guilt is strong;
4. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be
considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but
5. The court may recall any witness for additional examination:
1. upon motion of either party,
2. unless the witness to be called is:
1. dead,
2. outside the Philippines, or
3. otherwise unable to testify

Duties of the judge
Zuno v. Cabebe, 444 SCRA 382
Question:
What are the duties of a judge when an application for
bail is filed?

Answer:
The following rules outline the duties of the judge in
case an application for bail is filed:
1. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or
discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application
for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Sec. 18,
Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not
the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the
guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the
court to exercise its sound discretion (Sec. 7 and 8, id);
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Sec. 19, id);
otherwise the petition should be denied.
Need for application and hearing
Grageda v. Tresvalles, 421 SCRA 500
Facts:
A complaint for murder was filed for preliminary
investigation before the MTC. After examining the witnesses, the
judge issued on order finding probable cause against accused,
ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him, and at
the same time fixed bail at P30,000. The Provincial Prosecutor
subsequently conducted a preliminary investigation after the
records were transmitted to it and filed an information for murder
against the accused.
Issue:
Considering that the complaint is for murder, a capital
offense, is the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law for
granting bail without any hearing or an application from the
accused?
Held:
Yes. Sec. 8, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that
at the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is
in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution
has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong.
The importance of the Rule lies on the fact that on the result of
the bail hearing depends the right of an accused to provisional
liberty vis-a-vis the duty of the State to protect the people
against dangerous elements. The resolution of the issue affects
important norms in our society: liberty on one hand, and order
on the other. To minimize, if not eliminate, error and arbitrariness
in a judges decision, the Rules require the judge to hear the
parties and then make an intelligent assessment of their
evidence. Thus, the grant of bail without due hearing deprives
the prosecution of procedural due process.
Summary hearing in bail application
People v. Gako, Jr., 348 SCRA 334
Question:
What is a summary hearing for the purpose of
determining whether a person charged with a capital offense
may be granted bail?
Answer:
A summary hearing is defined as such brief and
speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of
guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for the
purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court does not sit to try
the merits or to enter into any inquiry as to the weight that ought
to be allowed to the evidence for or against the accused, nor
will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further
evidence may be therein offered and admitted. The course of
inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court which may
confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to
substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary examination and cross
examination.
Joint bail hearing and trial
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA 443
Facts:
President Estrada was on trial for Plunder before the
Sandiganbayan. While the trial was in progress, his son Jinggoy, a
co-accused, applied for bail.
Issue:
May the petition for bail, which requires only a summary
hearing, of Jinggoy, be heard jointly with the trial of the former
President?
Held:
No. The joinder of the hearings of the petition for bail
with the trial of the case against former President Estrada is
improper. While the proceedings for bail would be summary, as
against the former President the proceedings will be a full-blown
trial which is antithetical to the nature of a bail hearing. With the
joinder of the hearing of the petition for bail and the trial of the
former President, the latter will have the right to cross-examine
intensively and extensively the witnesses for the prosecution in
opposition to the petition for bail of Jinggoy. If Jinggoy will
adduce evidence in support of his petition after the prosecution
shall have concluded its evidence, the former President may
insist on cross-examining Jinggoy and his witnesses. The joinder of
the hearing will be prejudicial to Jinggoy as it will unduly delay
the determination of the issue of the right of Jinggoy to obtain
provisional liberty and seek relief from this Court if his petition is
denied.
Need for rebuttal evidence
People v. Gomez, 325 SCRA 61
Question:
Where the accused was not given the opportunity to
rebut the evidence submitted by the prosecution in a bail
hearing, what should be the proper remedy?
Answer:
Where the prosecution was not given the chance to
present evidence to prove that the guilt of the accused was
strong, we held that the proper remedy was for him to file a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This same principle must
apply to cases where the defense was not accorded a chance
to present any rebuttal evidence. When the trial court denied his
application for bail accused should have filed a petition for
certiorari before the appellate court.
Appearance of counsel for complainant
Goodman v. dela Victoria, 325 SCRA 658
Facts: A complaint for murder was filed against accused before
the Provincial Prosecution Office. Since they were arrested
without a warrant of arrest, they asked for a preliminary
investigation and waived their rights under Art. 125 of the
Revised Penal Code. Meanwhile they applied for bail before the
RTC.
Issue:
May counsel for private complaint appear in court to
oppose a bail application without authority from the public
prosecutor?
Held:
Yes. There is no prohibition for counsel of complainant
to appear before the court during the hearing for admission to
bail of an accused. There is no need of any special authority
from the public prosecutor to do so.
Content of order
People v. Presiding Judge, 431 SCRA 319
Facts:
After conducting a hearing on the application for bail
for the crime of murder, the judge issued the following order:

This is a PETITION FOR BAIL.
After the Court evaluated the evidence and
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it was shown that the
victim was gunned down admittedly by Accused during a
quarrel, or immediately soon after, with the quarrel still
continuing.
The Petition for Bail is therefore granted and
the same is set at FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.).
Issue:
Is the order valid?
Held:
No. On its face, the one-page Order demonstrates
grave abuse of discretion. The order granting or refusing the bail
must contain a summary of the evidence presented by the
prosecution.
There are two reasons for this requirement. First, the
summary of the evidence in the order is an extension of the
hearing proper, thus, a part of procedural due process wherein
the evidence presented during the prior hearing is formally
recognized as having been presented and most importantly,
considered. The failure to include every piece of evidence in the
summary presented by the prosecution in their favor during the
prior hearing would be tantamount to not giving them the
opportunity to be heard in said hearing, for the inference would
be that they were not considered at all in weighing the
evidence of guilt. Such would be a denial of due process, for
due process means not only giving every contending party the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


opportunity to be heard but also for the Court to consider every
piece of evidence presented in their favor. Second,
the summary of the evidence in the order is the basis for the
judges exercising his judicial discretion. Only after weighing the
pieces of evidence as contained in the summary will the judge
formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt
against the accused is strong based on his discretion.
The assailed Order was sorely defective in both form
and substance. It had no summary of the evidence, but merely
a curt one-sentence description of the evidence for the
prosecution. Neither did the Order have a conclusion on
whether the evidence of guilt was strong. Without such
conclusion, there was no basis for granting bail.
Appeal by offended party
People v. Calo, Jr., 186 SCRA 620
Issue:
Does the private complainant have standing to
question the granting of the bail to accused on certiorari without
prior approval or conformity of the Solicitor General?
Held:
Yes. While the rule is that only the Solicitor General may
bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, or represent the Peopel or the State in criminal
proceedings pending in the SC and the CA, an offended party
in a criminal case has sufficient personality and a valid
grievance against an order granting bail to the accused. This is
in line with the underlying spirit of a liberal construction of the
Rules of Court in order to promote their object, as against the
literal interpretation of Rule 110, Sec. 2.
Effect of determination of strength of evidence
People v. Hapa, 361 SCRA 361
Facts:
Accused was charged with murder. He applied for,
and was allowed to post bail during trial. Subsequently, he was
convicted of murder. On appeal, he argues that since he was
allowed to post bail, it followed that the judge found that the
evidence of the prosecution was not strong, so that at most he
could be convicted only of homicide.
Issue:
Is the argument correct?
Held:
The argument is manifestly flawed. In a summary
hearing conducted for the purpose of determining whether the
evidence of guilt is strong for purposes of bail, what the court
does is to determine the weight of the evidence, not the guilt or
innocence of the accused. On such hearing, the court does not
sit to try the merits or to enter into any inquiry as to the weight
that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against the
accused nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on
what further evidence may be therein offered and admitted.

Use of evidence presented during bail hearing
People v. Singh, 360 SCRA 404
Issue:
May the trial court unilaterally declare that the
evidence presented during the bail hearing are considered
automatically reproduced at the trial of the main case?
Held:
Yes. Sec. 8, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court specifically
provides that the evidence presented during the bail hearings
shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial. The
mandate of the Rules is clear and there is no need for the trial
court to issue an order so that the evidence presented in the bail
proceedings may be considered automatically reproduced at
the trial.
TUCAY vs. JUDGE DOMAGAS
[Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1286] March 2, 1995
HELD: Although the Provincial Prosecutor had interposed
no objection to the grant of bail to the accused,
respondent judge should nevertheless have set the petition
for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from the
prosecution whether the latter was not really contesting the
bail application.

He should have called a hearing for the additional reason
of taking into account the guidelines in Rule 114 in fixing the
amount of the bail. Only after satisfying himself that the
prosecution did not wish to oppose the petition for bail for
justifiable cause (e.g., for tactical reasons) and taking into
account the factors enumerated in Rule 114, sec. 6 for fixing
bail should respondent judge have granted the petition for
bail and ordered the release of the accused.

GUILLERMO vs. JUDGE REYES, JR., January 18, 1995

HELD: A hearing, in the nature of a summary proceeding
entailing judicial determination is required where the grant
of bail is addressed to the discretion of the court. The
prosecution should be given the opportunity to adduce
evidence thereat after which the court should then spell out
at least a summary or resume of the evidence on which the
order, whether it be affirmative or negative, is based.
Otherwise, the order is defective or voidable.

Meaning, if you grant or deny bail, a court order must issue
where he summarizes the evidence, then state why it believes it
is strong or it is weak. Otherwise the judge is administratively
liable for not complying with the requirement.

AURILLO vs. FRANCISCO, 235 SCRA 283

HELD: In a hearing for petition for bail, affidavits will not
suffice. Witnesses must be presented to testify. Affidavits
will suffice only when it determines probable cause for
the purpose of whether or not to issue search warrant.
The judge has the personal duty of calling the witnesses
one by one to hear them or review the evidence, i.e.
affidavits presented at the fiscals office.

Verily, it was patent error for him to base his order
granting bail merely on the supporting affidavits
attached to the information since those were merely
intended to establish probable cause as basis for the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


issuance of an arrest warrant, and not to control his
discretion to deny or grant bail in all situations

AGUIRRE vs. JUDGE BELMONTE, October 27, 1994

HELD: Even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in
opposition to an application for bail of an accused, the
court may still require that it answer questions in order to
ascertain not only the strength of the state's evidence but
also the adequacy of the amount of bail.

The court will have to ask the prosecution, why are you not
opposing?

Whether to grant or deny bail, a hearing is a 100% requisite.
Otherwise the order granting or denying bail is defective, and
the judge may lose his job.

Lets go to this important question:

For bail to be denied, what are the requirements?
Under the law:
1. the evidence of guilt is strong;
2. the crime is punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment;

BRAVO, JR. vs. BORJA, 134 SCRA 466

FACTS: The accused was charged with murder. The
accused filed a petition for bail where the case is pending
on the argument that when he committed a crime, he was
only 16 years old. He attached his birth certificate in the
application for bail. He argued that if found guilty, the
penalty is automatic one (1) degree lower so, temporal.
The worst that will happen to him is temporal. Therefore, bail
now becomes a matter of right.

ISSUE #1: In the hearing for bail, should the court allow the
presentation of evidence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances?

HELD: NO. Bravo, Jr. is wrong. In the hearing for a petition for
bail, the presentation of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances is NOT covered because if the court will
require the presentation of said circumstances, then there
would be a need for a trial on the merits of the case. All the
court has to do after the bail hearing would be to render a
decision. That would defeat the purpose of the hearing for
bail.

ISSUE: #2: Whether or not Bravo, Jr. is entitled to bail.

HELD: YES. Although the presentation of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances is NOT allowed, the SC said,
however, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that when
Bravo, Jr. committed the crime he was only 16 years old.
Normally, we close our eyes, but in this case, we cannot
because he alleged it. As a matter of fact, his birth
certificate was attached to this petition and the prosecution
DID NOT challenge his minority. Since the plea of minority is
already before us and the accused did not challenge it, we
cannot close our eyes to the fact that even if we find him
guilty, the penalty to be imposed would not be reclusion
perpetua or death but lower. Since the probable penalty is
not death or perpetua, then he is entitled to bail as a matter
of right.

So what are the principal points to remember in the case of
Bravo, Jr?
The following:
1. that in a petition for bail there should be no
evidence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. It should not be presented in a
petition for bail. This should be presented during
the trial;
2. however, despite the fact that it should not be
presented, if it is alleged and presented there and
the prosecution did not dispute it, the court should
consider it just the same; and
3. even if the accused is charged with a crime
punishable by death, perpetua or life
imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong, if
the probable imposable penalty is less than
perpetua, bail becomes a matter of right.

PEOPLE vs. CALO, 186 SCRA 620 [1990]

FACTS: Three (3) people were accused of murder for the
death of the victim. The prosecution recommended no bail.
After a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt
is strong, the trial court issued the order granting bail. The
son of the victim went to the SC questioning the order
granting the bail of the accused.

ISSUE: Whether or not the son of the victim has sufficient
legal personality to question the order granting bail?
(Normally, if there is anyone who should question it, it should
be the Solicitor General representing the people of the
Philippines)

HELD: While the rule is, only the Solicitor General may
represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings
pending in this Court and the Court of Appeals, the ends of
substantial justice would be better served, and the issues in
this action could be determined in a more just, speedy and
inexpensive manner, by entertaining the petition at bar. As
an offended party in a criminal case, private petitioner has
sufficient personality and a valid grievance against the
judge's order granting bail to the alleged murderers of his
(private petitioner's) father.

So, the case of Calo was considered an exception because he is
also an aggrieved party the aggrieved parties are the People
and the family of the victim. So in this case, the son is also an
aggrieved party.

SEC. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. The judge who
issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a
reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but
not limited to, the following factors:
(a) Financial capability of the accused to
give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstance of the
offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the
accused;
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the
accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing
at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a
fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the
accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a)
When bail shall be granted, how much must the amount be?
There are guidelines under Section 9. Of course one of the
factors is paragraph [c] penalty for the offense charged. Thats
why the DOJ has a guidelines. But that is only one of the factors.
The court can either follow the recommendation, raise it or lower
it. All these guidelines where taken from the ruling in the case of
VILLASEOR VS. ABANO (21 SCRA 312)

SEC. 10. Corporate surety.
Requisites for Providing a Bail Bond in the form of a Corporate
Security
1. It must be provided by a domestic or foreign corporation
which is:
1. licensed as a surety, and
2. authorized to act as a surety;
2. It must be:
1. Jointly subscribed by:
1. the accused, and
2. an officer of the corporation; and
2. Authorized by its board of directors

Requisites for surety bond
Mangalindan v. CA, 246 SCRA 105
Question:
What are the requisites before a surety bond may be
accepted?
Answer:
Before accepting a surety bond a clerk of court require
the following: (a) photographs of the accused, (b) affidavit of
justification, (c) clearance from the SC, (d) certificate of
compliance with Circular No. 66 [19 Sep 1966] of the Insurance
Commissioner, (e) authority of the agent, and (f) current
certificate of authority issued by the Insurance Commissioner
with a financial statement showing the maximum underwriting
capacity of the surety company.

SEC. 11. Property bond, how posted.
Property Bond
1. Definition:
It is an undertaking constituted as lien on the real
property given as security
for the amount of the bail
2. Procedure Within ten (10) days after the approval of the
bond:
1. The accused shall cause the annotation of the lien:
1. On the certificate of title on file:
1. if the land is registered with the
Registry of Deeds, or
2. if unregistered in the Registration
Book on the space
provided therefor, in the Registry of
Deeds for the province or city where
the land lies, and
2. On the corresponding tax declaration in the
office of the
provincial, city and municipal assessor
concerned.
2. The accused shall submit to the court his compliance
and his failure to do
so shall be sufficient cause for:
1. The cancellation of the property bond, and
2. His re-arrest and detention

SEC 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond.
Sureties of Property Bond
1. Qualification:
Must be a resident owner of real estate within the
Philippines
2. Value of the property of surety:
1. If there is only one [1] surety his real estate must be
worth at
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


least the amount of the undertaking
2. If there are 2 or more sureties each may justify in an
amount less
than that expressed in the undertaking but the
aggregate of the justified sums must be equivalent to
the whole amount of the bail demanded
3. Every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own
undertaking over and above all:
1. just debts,
2. Obligations, and
3. Properties exempt from execution

SEC. 13. Justification of sureties.
Other Requirements
1. Obligations of a surety:
1. He must justify by affidavit taken before the judge
that he possesses the qualifications prescribed in Sec. 12
2. He must describe the property given as security,
stating:
1. the nature of his title,
2. its encumbrances
3. the number and amount of other bails
entered into by him and still undischarged, and
4. his other liabilities.
2. The court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning
their sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper.
3. No bail shall be approved unless the surety is qualified.

SEC. 14. Deposit of cash as bail.
Cash Bond as Bail
1. Who may deposit the cash bond:
1. The accused, or
2. Any person acting in his behalf
2. Where the cash bond may be deposited:
1. The nearest collector of internal revenue, or
2. Provincial, city, or municipal treasurer
3. How much shall be deposited:
1. The amount of bail fixed by the court, or
2. The amount recommended by the prosecutor who
investigated or filed
the case
4. When accused shall be discharged from custody Upon
submission of:
1. a proper certificate of deposit, and
2. a written undertaking showing compliance with the
requirements of
Sec. 2
5. What happens to the money deposited:
1. It shall be considered as bail,
2. It shall be applied to the payment of fine and costs,
3. The excess, if any, shall be returned:
1. to the accused [whether convicted or
acquitted], or
2. to whoever made the deposit

Requiring bail in cash
Victory Liner v. Bellosillo, 425 SCRA 79
Facts:
Accused, who was charged with Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide, posted a surety bond of P50,000. Later, on
the strength of the prayer of the prosecutor, the court ordered
accused to substitute it with a cash bond. He likewise ordered
another accused to post his bail in cash. Asked to explain in the
course of an administrative complaint, the judge argued that
the Rules of Court leave to the discretion of trial judges the
question of whether a bail should be posted in the form of
corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit or personal
recognizance.
Issue:
Is the judge correct?
Held:
No. While cash bail is authorized under our rules, the
option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily belongs
to the accused, as can be gleaned from the language of Sec.
14, Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: The accused or
any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the
nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or
municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court or
recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the
case, and upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and
of a written undertaking showing compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 2, the accused shall be discharged from
custody... The judge, therefore, grossly erred in converting the
surety bond to cash bond and in demanding that the other
accused post a cash bond to obtain their provisional liberty.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Deposit of cash with the judge
Lachica v. Tormis, 470 SCRA 20
Issue:
May a judge be held administratively liable for
personally accepting the cash bond of an accused?
Held:
Yes. Sec. 14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure specifies the persons with whom a cash bail bond
may be deposited, namely: the collector of internal revenue or
the provincial, city or municipal treasurer. A judge is not
authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should such
cash be kept in his office.

SEC. 15. Recognizance. Whenever allowed by law or
these Rules, the court may release a person in custody
on his own recognizance or that of a responsible
person. (15a)
Recognizance
Definition:
An obligation of record, entered into before some
court or magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition
to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal
cases being the appearance of the accused for trial.
2. When may a person in custody be released on recognizance:
1. Whenever allowed by law, or
2. Whenever allowed by these rules
3. In whose recognizance may a person be released:
1. on his own, or
2. on that of a responsible person

Recognizance allowed
Espiritu v. Jovellanos, 280 SCRA 696
Question:
When may a person be released on recognizance?
Answer:
Under Rule 114, 15 of the Rules of Court, the release on
recognizance of any person under detention may be ordered
only by a court and only in the following cases: (a) when the
offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, a light felony, or
a criminal offense, the imposable penalty for which does not
exceed 6 months imprisonment and/or P2,000 fine, under the
circumstances provided in RA 6036; (b) where a person has
been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum
of the imposable principal penalty, without application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstances, in
which case the court, in its discretion, may allow his release on
his own recognizance; (c) where the accused has applied for
probation, pending resolution of the case but no bail was filed or
the accused is incapable of filing one; and (d) in case of a
youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial,
or appeal, if he is unable to furnish bail and under the
circumstances envisaged in P.D. 603, as amended (Art. 191).

*8.2. Recognizance may be allowed in the following instances:
8.2.1. The charge against the accused is for violation of
a municipal or city ordinance, a light felony and/or a criminal
offense the prescribed penalty for which is not higher than six (6)
months imprisonment and/or a fine of P2,000.00 or both,
provided the accused has established, to the satisfaction of the
court, the inability to post the required cash or bail bond.
8.2.2. When the accused has been in custody for a
period equal to, or more than, the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he/she may be
sentenced. However, if the maximum penalty to which the
accused is sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty
(30) days of preventive imprisonment.
8.2.3. At the discretion of the court, if the accused has
been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum
of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged,
without applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any
modifying circumstances.
8.2.4. Under Rep. Act No. 9344, a child fifteen (15) years
old or below taken into custody shall be released to his/her
parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child's
nearest relative. If the parents, guardian or nearest relatives
cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child
may be released to any of the following: a duly registered non-
governmental or religious organization; a barangay official or a
member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children
(BCPC) a local social welfare and development officer, or, when
and where appropriate, the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD). RA No. 9344 Sec. 20)
The same Act provides that children detained pending
trial may be released on bail or recognizance as provided for
under Sections 34 and 35. In all other cases and whenever
possible, detention pending trial may be replaced by alternative
measures, such as close supervision, intensive care or placement
with a family or in an education setting or home.
Institutionalization or detention of the child pending trial
shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest
possible period of time. (id. Sec. 36)

SEC. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance.
When Bail Not Required
1. When provided by the law, or
2. When provided by these Rules
When a Person in Custody Shall be Released
1. When he has been in custody for a period [without prejudice
to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal]:
1. equal to the possible maximum imprisonment
prescribed for the offense
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


charged, or
2. more than the possible maximum imprisonment
prescribed for the
offense charged
2. If the maximum penalty to which he may be sentenced is
destierro:
he shall be released after 30 days of preventive
imprisonment
3. If he has been in custody for a period equal to or more than
the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense
charged, [without application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law or any modifying circumstances]:
He shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own
recognizance, at the discretion of the court
When the Accused is Exempt From Putting Up Bail
1. RA 6036 When the offense has an imposable penalty of 6
months or less under the conditions mentioned therein;
2. Rule 114, Sec. 16 When a case is filed under the Summary
Rules, a mere notice is sufficient, a warrant of arrest is not
required;
3. Rule 112, Sec. 9 [b] If the judge is satisfied that there is no
necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may issue
summons instead of a warrant of arrest
Summary Procedure
Martinez v. Paguio, 394 SCRA 287
Issue:
May a judge be held administratively liable for ordering
the arrest of accused and requiring bail in a case for malicious
mischief which carries a penalty of arresto mayor?
Held:
Yes. R.A. 6036 provides that bail is not generally
required for violation of municipal or city ordinances or for
criminal offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher than
arresto mayor and/or a fine of P2,000 or both. In a charge of
simple malicious mischief which is covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure, bail is no longer necessary, unless accused
fails to appear whenever required by the court.
As a general rule, when the criminal case is filed, there will be
warrant of arrest. If there is warrant of arrest, there must be a bail
either in cash or recognizance. But Section 16 provides that no
bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so provide. This
is now the question:

What are the instances where despite the pendency of the
criminal case, the accused is not required to post bail? Meaning,
he is exempt from putting up a bail bond because the law or the
rules says so.
A: The following are the instances:

1. Under RA 6036;

2. When the crime is covered by the Summary Rules
because of Section 16 of Rule 114. When a case is
filed under the Summary Rules, a mere notice is
sufficient. No need of a warrant of arrest.

3. Section 8 [b] of Rule 112 (this is a new sentence):

x x x x However, if the judge is
satisfied that there is no necessity for
placing the accused under custody,
he may issue summons instead of a
warrant of arrest.

So, the court is satisfied that there is no need
to issue a warrant of arrest maybe because the
court believes that you will not run away. In effect,
no bail shall be required.

SEC. 17. Bail, where filed.
Where Petition for Bail is Filed
1. General Rule
With the court where the case is pending
2. Exceptions the petition may be filed:
1. With any RTC or MTC judge in the province, city or
municipality when the judge where the case is pending is
absent or unavailable
2. With the RTC of the place where the accused is
arrested if arrested in a place other than where the case is
pending
3. With the MTC of the place where the accused is
arrested if RTC judge of the place where he is arrested is not
available
3. When Bail can ONLY be Granted in the court where the case is
pending [whether on trial or appeal]:
1. When the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, and
2. When the accused seeks to be released on
recognizance

4. When the person in custody is NOT yet charged in court:
The petition may be filed with any court in the
province, city or municipality where he is held [This applies to
Inquest]

When accused is arrested
Espanol v. Mupas,442 SCRA 13
Question:
Under Sec. 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, where may an accused file bail?
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Answer:
Sec. 17 of Rule 114 anticipates two situations: First, the
accused is arrested in the same province, city or municipality
where his case is pending. Second, the accused is arrested in
the province, city or municipality other than where his case is
pending. In the first situation, the accused may file bail in the
court where his case is pending or, in the absence or
unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the
same court within the province or city. In the second situation,
the accused has two options. First, he may file bail in the court
where his case is pending or, second, he may file bail with any
RTC in the province, city or municipality where he was arrested.
When no RTC judge is available, he may file bail with any MTC
judge therein.
A judge who approves applications for bail of accused whose
cases were not only pending in other courts but who were,
likewise, arrested and detained outside his territorial jurisdiction is
guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
Suppose your case is in Cebu City and you are arrested in
Manila, can you post bail in Manila?
YES because it would be very tedious if you will be arrested and
brought back in Cebu City just to post bail. And under
paragraph [a], it may be filed with any RTC of such place.

What are the instances where the accused is only allowed to
post bail before the very same court where the case is pending?

Under paragraph [b], the following are the instances:

1. if you seek to be released on recognizance, no
other judge can grant it other the judge where
you case is pending;
2. when bail is a matter of discretion. For example:
Ms.T is accused of a capital offense and she would
like to file a petition for bail because the evidence
of guilt is not strong, that should be decided by the
very court where her case is pending.

Is the MTC entitled to entertain a petition for bail?
YES

What are the instances when a MTC is entitled to entertain
applications for bail?

The following are the instances:

1. Section 35 of the Judiciary law (Special jurisdiction
of the MTC) the MTC may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in the absence of ALL the RTC
judges.

Lets go now to the last paragraph of Section 17:
Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court
may apply for bail with any court in the province, city,
or municipality where he is held.

This is one provision that has stunned so many: how can a person
be in custody who is not yet charged in court?

What is contemplated under the last paragraph of Section 17 is
Rule 112 Section 7 on INQUEST preliminary investigation when a
person is lawfully arrested without a warrant, he will be detained
immediately without preliminary investigation. But if he demands
a preliminary investigation, he can get it but he must waive the
effects of Article 125 of the RPC.

Section 7, Rule 112, last sentence of second paragraph provides:
Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the
investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its
inception. So he can ask for bail even if he is not yet charged in
court.
If you apply for bail with any court in the province, city or
municipality, you cannot put there People of the Philippines
versus because there is no criminal case yet. What will be
your reference? So what will be the title?
IN RE: PETITION FOR BAIL..
What the Court must do when it Receives an Application for Bail
under Sec. 8
1. It must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the
prosecutor, or
2. It must require the prosecutor to submit his recommendation

Notice where bail is a matter of right
Ruiz v. Beldia, 451 SCRA 402
Issue:
Where bail is matter of right, should the prosecutor still
be notified of the application?

Held:
Yes. A hearing on an application for bail is mandatory.
Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each
case. The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the
presence of the accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to
comply with the constitutional provision that bail should not be
excessive. Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of
discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given
to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his
recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the
judge is required to take into account a number of factors such
as the applicants character and reputation, forfeiture of other
bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.

Sec. 19
Procedure for Release on Bail
1. The accused can only be discharged upon approval of the
bail by the judge with whom the petition was filed
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


2. When the motion for bail is filed with a court other than where
the case is pending:
1. The judge who accepted the bail shall forward it, to
the court where the case is pending,
2. He must include the order of release and other
supporting papers, and
3. The court where the case is pending may, for good
reason, require a different bail to be filed.

Sec. 20
Increase or Reduction of Bail
1. After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon
good cause, either increase or reduce its amount;
2. When increased the accused may be committed to custody if
he does not give bail in the increased amount within a
reasonable period;
3. An accused held to answer a criminal charge who is released
without bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may:
1. at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, and
whenever a strong showing of guilt appears to the court,
2. be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu
thereof, committed to custody

SEC. 21. Forfeiture of bail.
Forfeiture of Bail
1. When the presence of the accused is required by the court or
these Rules:
His bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before
the court on a given date and time.
2. If the accused fails to appear in person as required:
1. His bail shall be declared forfeited, and
2. The bondsmen are given 30 days within which:
1. to produce their principal, and
2. to show cause why no judgment should be
rendered against them for the amount of their bail.
3. Within the 30 day period, the bondsmen must:
1. Produce the body of their principal or give the
reason for his non-production; and
2. Explain why the accused did not appear before the
court when first required to do so.

4. Effect of failure of bondsman to comply with the above
requisites:
1. A judgment shall be rendered against the
bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail, and
2. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the
liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused:
1. has been surrendered, or
2. is acquitted.
Judgment against bondsman
Reliance Surety v. Amante, 462 SCRA 399
Question:
What are the 2 occasions upon which the trial court
may rule adversely against the bondsman in cases when the
accused fails to appear in court?

Answer:
First, the non-appearance by the accused is cause for
the judge to summarily declare the bond as forfeited. Second,
the bondsman, after the summary forfeiture of the bond, are
given 30 days within which to produce the principal and to show
cause why a judgment should not be rendered against them for
the amount of the bond. It is only after this 30-day period, during
which the bondsman is afforded the opportunity to be heard by
the trial court, that the trial court may render a judgment on the
bond against the bondsman. Judgment against the bondsman
cannot be entered unless such judgment is preceded by the
order of forfeiture and an opportunity given to the bondsman to
produce the accused or to adduce satisfactory reason for their
inability to do so.
Failure of counsel to appear for trial
Andres v. Beltran, 363 SCRA 371
Issue:
May the judge order the forfeiture of bail and the
detention of accused for the failure of his counsel to appear
during trial?
Held:
No. Nowhere in Rule 114 does such ground exist. Under
Sec. 2, the presence of counsel is not a condition of the bail.
Neither is it a reason for an increase or forfeiture of bail under
Sec. 20 and 21. Sec. 22, which states the instances when bail
may be cancelled, i.e., surrender of the accused, proof of his
death, acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case or
execution of the judgment of conviction is not in point, aside
from the fact that it also requires an application of the
bondsmen and due notice to the prosecutor.
Appeal of judgment against bond
Reliance Surety v. Amante, 462 SCRA 399
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Question:
Is the judgment against the bondsman on the bond
subject to appeal?
Answer:
The judgment against the bondsmen on the bond may
be construed as a final order, hence subject to appeal. There is
no reason to disturb the doctrine of long standing that
characterizes such judgment as a final judgment or order or that
such judgment may be subject to appeal. A final order has been
defined as one which disposes of the whole subject matter or
terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to
be done but to enforce by execution what has been
determined. Indeed, from a judgment on the bond, a writ of
execution may immediately issue, and need not be effected
through a separate action. An appeal from a judgment on the
bond is subsumed under Sec. 1, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which provides that appeals in criminal cases avail
only from a judgment or final order, and Sec. 6 of the same Rule
which requires that the appeal be taken within 15 days from
notice of the final order appealed from.

If you are required to appear in court for an arraignment, or for
some other reason, and you did not appear, the first step is,
upon motion of the prosecution, the court will issue an order to
confiscate the bond and the court will also direct the
bondsmen:
1. to produce the body of their principal within 30
days; AND
2. to explain why the accused did not appear before
the court when first required to do so.

Suppose you failed to comply both or one of the conditions,
what will happen?

The court will render judgement on the bond. Meaning, the
bonding company is now liable on its bond.

So there are two stages, namely:
first stage is to order of confiscation or forfeiture of the bond and
the second stage is, if the conditions are not met, there will be
judgment against the bond. So that is the step-by-step
application of Section 21.

Sec. 22
Cancellation of Bail
1. Requisites:
1. An application for cancellation must be filed by the
bondsmen,
2. Due notice must be given to the prosecutor, and
3. The bail may be cancelled upon:
1. surrender of the accused, or
2. proof of his death
2. When bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled:
1. upon acquittal of the accused,
2. upon dismissal of the case, or
3. upon execution of the judgment of conviction.
3. Effect of cancellation:
It shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail
Arrest for another crime
Esteban v. Alhambra, 437 SCRA 560
Facts:
Anita put up a bail bond of P80,000 for accused in 4
criminal cases. While out on bail, accused committed another
crime, was arrested and detained so that Anita filed a motion to
cancel the cash bond she posted. The judge denied the motion
on the theory that accused was not surrendered by Anita but
was arrested for another crime, and that the cash bond is to be
applied as payment for fine and costs.
Issue:
Is the court correct in refusing to cancel the cash
bond?
Held:
Yes. Rule 114, Sec. 22[1] of the Rules of Court
contemplates of a situation where, among others, the surety or
bondsman surrenders the accused. Anita did not surrender the
accused, charged in the 4 criminal cases, to the trial court. The
accused was arrested and detained because he was charged
in a subsequent criminal case.
Moreover, the bail bond posted for the accused was in
the form of cash deposit which, as mandated by Sec. 14 of Rule
114, shall be applied to the payment of fine and costs, and the
excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to any person
who made the deposit. As far as the State is concerned, while
the money may be deposited by another person, it is regarded
as money of the accused. Consequently, it can be applied in
payment of any fine and costs that may be imposed by the
court.
Escape of accused to foreign country
People v. Caparas, 158 SCRA 152
Issue:
May an explanation given by a bondsman within a
reasonable period that the principal left the country
surreptitiously and was detained in a foreign jurisdiction for the
commission of a different offense in said jurisdiction be
considered a substantial compliance of the duty imposed upon
the bondsman sufficient to exonerate the bondsman from
liability?
Held:
No. Under Sec. 21, Rule 114, to justify exemption from
liability on a bail bond or a reduction thereof, the accused must
be surrendered to the court and his non-appearance when first
required by the court must be satisfactorily explained. Petitioner
was of the erroneous impression that as long as an explanation
was given and provided it was made timely a bondsman could
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


be readily relieved of liability. Petitioners allegation that the
performance of its obligation was rendered impossible by the
act of the oblige of issuing clearance enabling accused to
leave the Philippines, is untenable. It could have taken steps to
prevent the departure. The error of the government agency
concerned in allowing accused to leave must be because of
her misrepresentation that there was no pending case against
her. Petitioner cannot be relieved of liability on the ground that it
had not participated nor consented to the escape of the
principal. As the jailer or custodian of the accused its obligation
is to produce the body of the accused whenever so required.
Failure to do so is a violation of the condition of the bond.
Other instances where bail may be cancelled
Philippines Phoenix v. Sandiganbayan, 149 SCRA 317
Question:
Aside from surrender of accused by the bondsman or
upon proof of his death, in what instances may the bail be
cancelled?
Answer:
As a general principle, aside from the instances
enumerated in Sec. 22 of Rule 114, the surety, upon application
filed with the court, may also be relieved from the non-
appearance of the bond where its performance is rendered
impossible by the act of God, the act of the oblige [the
Government] or the act of the law. The exoneration under the
second category is predicated upon the principle that the
Government, as the oblige in the bond, cannot by its own acts
prevent the fulfilment of the conditions of the bond by the
sureties and at the same time demand its forfeiture.

SEC. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail.
Arrest of Accused Out on Bail
1. Who may execute the arrest for the purpose of surrendering
the accused:
1. The bondsmen, or
2. Upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy
of the undertaking, the bondsmen may cause him to be arrested
by
1. a police officer, or
2. any other person of suitable age and
discretion.
2. When accused released on bail may be re-arrested without
the necessity of a warrant:
If he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
permission of the court where the case is pending.
Right to travel
Prohibition by Sandiganbayan
Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633
Issue:
May a person who is out on bail be prohibited by the
court from leaving the country?
Held:
Yes. A court has the power to prohibit a person
admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary
consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. The
condition stated under Rule 114, of the Revised Rules of Court for
accused to make himself available at all times whenever the
court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his
right to travel. As held in People vs. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935):
Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines
without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach
of the courts.
Prohibition by MTC
Mondejar v. Buban, 361 SCRA 119
Issue:
May a MTC judge issue a hold departure in criminal
cases pending before it?
Held:
No. Circular No. 39-97 [1] specifically provides that
hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.
Clearly then, criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first
level courts do not fall within the ambit of the circular.

Section 23 is an instance of a valid warrantless arrest. This is a
continuation of Section 5 Rule 113

For the purpose of surrendering the accused, they can arrest him
without a warrant. The bondsmen is his jailer. The theory of bond,
especially corporate bond, is that the sureties or bondsmen
become the jailer in the eyes of the law, and the accused is their
prisoner. They take over government.

Lets go to last paragraph of Section 23. If you are attempting to
leave the Philippines, especially if there is a hold departure order,
even if you are on bail, you can be arrested without a warrant.

Now, we will go to this question related to your constitutional
right to travel:

How do you reconcile Section 23 with the constitutional right to
travel?

MANOTOC vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 142 SCRA 149

ISSUE: How come if you are out on bail, you cannot leave
the country without the permission of the court?

HELD: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted
to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary
consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.
The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself
available at all times whenever the court requires his
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to
travel. (because this is one of the conditions of the bail
bond you must be available whenever the court requires
you to appear.)
Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the
Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed
beyond the reach of the courts. If the sureties have the right
to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more so then
has the court from which the sureties merely derive such
right, and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal
remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter.
The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country
without the assent of the surety because in accepting a bail
bond or recognizance, the government impliedly agrees
that it will not take any proceedings with the principal that
will increase the risks of the sureties or affect their remedies
against him. Under this rule, the surety on a bail bond or
recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation
inconsistent with the conditions thereof, which is made
without his assent.
So, if your own bondsmen have the right to prevent you, with
more reason with the court which has the complete jurisdiction
over your person. But even if the court wants to grant you
permission to leave, but the bondsmen, says no, then the court
has no power to grant your request because the bondsmen
must also agree. (Manotoc vs. CA, supra)

SILVERIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS,April 8, 1991

FACTS: Silverio was charged criminally for violation of
Revised Securities Act. For more than two years, there were
series of postponements of the arraignment scheduled
therein. He could not be arraigned because he had gone
abroad several times without the necessary court approval.
The prosecution got fed up already. So upon motion of the
prosecution, the trial court ordered the DFA to cancel
Silverios passport or to deny the application to re-new the
passport. The Commission on Immigration is also ordered to
prevent Silverio from leaving the country.

Now, according to Silverio, the courts orders are
unconstitutional because under the Constitution, courts can
impair the right of a citizen to travel only on the ground of
national security, public safety or public health.

The SC here traced the history of that constitutional
provision. How did that provision come about?

HELD: The phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a
reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under
the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing
Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon
application of an interested party. (because during the
Marcos era, he created a travel processing agency
headed by General Ver, where every Filipino who wants to
travel abroad must be cleared by that office.)
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no
means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the
courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into
effect in criminal cases pending before them.

In other words, the court has always the power to prevent an
accused from leaving for abroad. And that constitutional
provision was never interpreted to limit the power of the court.
Therefore, Silverio was citing the wrong provision. The philosophy
does not apply to Silverio.

SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORENA, December 2, 1993

FACTS: Several criminal cases were filed against Miriam
Santiago arising from her tenure as Immigration
Commissioner. Now, she was interviewed by the media and
she said that she is leaving in a few days for abroad
because she was offered a fellowship grant by the Harvard
University. The Sandiganbayan issued a Hold Departure
Order.Santiago questioned the order.

ISSUE: May a court trying a criminal case issue a hold-
departure order motu propio to prevent the accused from
leaving the country even if the prosecution did not file any
motion to issue such order?

HELD: YES. The court has the power to issue motu propio a
hold-departure order. The hold-departure order is but an
exercise of the courts inherent power to preserve and to
maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case
and the person of the accused.

MARCOS vs. SANDIGANBAYAN,247 SCRA (August 9, 1995)

FACTS: Criminal charges were filed against Imelda Marcos.
In one of the cases, she was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan. After conviction, she filed a motion for
reconsideration and while her motion was pending, she filed
a motion for leave to travel abroad for treatment of
hypertensive heart disease, uncontrolled angina pectoris,
and anterior myocardial infarction. The motion was
supported by medical reports prepared by her physician
and cardiologist and other doctors in Makati Medical
Center.

Presiding Justice Garchitorena referred the issue to a
committee of cardiologists from Health Center of the
Philippines for extra opinion on some questions among
which was: Is Marcos condition fatal? Or, Is she in danger
of dying? The committee submitted a report which was
heard in the presence of the two lawyers of Marcos. The
Report of the committee: she was sick but the evidence
does not confirm the allegation that Mrs. Marcos is in the
high risk group of sudden cardiac death. In other words, she
is sick but she is not in danger of dying.

With that, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Marcos
went to the SC attacking the Sandiganbayan order alleging
that the court adopted an unusual and unorthodox
conduct by motu propio conducting a third party asking
the latter to give an opinion.

HELD: The Sandiganbayan acted properly. Respondent
court had to seek expert opinion because petitioner's
motion was based on the advice of her physician. The court
could not be expected to just accept the opinion of
petitioner's physician in resolving her request for permission
to travel. The subject lay beyond its competence and since
the grant of the request depended on the verification of the
claim that petitioner was suffering from a medical condition
that was alleged to be serious and life threatening, the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


respondent court, we think, followed the only prudent
course available of seeking the opinion of other specialists in
the field.
Indeed, when even in their own field of expertise (law)
courts are allowed to invite amici curiae to shed light on
recondite points of law, there is no reason for denying them
assistance on other subjects.

Perhaps the best proof that she is not in the group is the
fact that she ran in the last election for a seat in the House
of Representatives and won. It may be assumed that she
waged an arduous political campaign but apparently is
none the worse for it.

COJUANGCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 300 SCRA 367 [1998]

FACTS: Cojuangco has several pending cases before the
Sandiganbayan. And there is a travel ban everytime he
travels abroad.

ISSUE: Is there a need of a hold-departure order everytime
Cojuangco travels abroad?

HELD: We resolve in the negative. The travel ban should be
lifted, considering all the circumstances now prevailing. It
now becomes necessary that there be strong and
compelling reasons to justify the continued restriction on
Cojuangcos right to travel abroad. Admittedly, all of
Cojuangcos previous requests to travel abroad has been
granted and that Cojuangco has always returned to the
Philippines and complied with the restrictions imposed on
him.

The necessity of further denying Cojuangcos right to travel
abroad, with attendant restrictions, appears less than clear.
The risk of flight is further diminished in view of Cojuangcos
recent reinstatement as Chairman and Chief Executive of
San Miguel Corporation, though he has now more
justification to travel so as to oversee the entire operations
of that company. In this regard, it has to be conceded that
his assumption of such vital post has come at a time when
the current economic crisis has adversely affected by
international operations of many companies, including San
Miguel.

The need to travel abroad frequently on the party of
Cojuangco, to formulate and implement the necessary
corporate strategies and decisions, could not be forestalled.
These considerations affecting Cojuangcos duties to a
publicly held company, militate against imposing further
restrictions on Cojuangcos right to travel abroad.

Sec. 24
Bail After Final Judgment of Conviction:
1. After Final Judgment of Conviction:
1. General Rule Bail is NOT allowed
2. Exceptions If before such finality, the accused
applies for probation:
1. He may be allowed temporary liberty under
his bail, or
2. The court may allow his release on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the
community:
1. when no bail was filed, or
2. when the accused is incapable of
filing one,
2. After the accused has commenced to serve sentence:
Bail is NOT allowed

Bail after final judgment
Vicente v. Majudcon, 461 SCRA 12
Facts:
Accused was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment
for violation of B.P. 22. After serving for 3 months, he filed a
motion for clarification regarding the effect of the Supreme
Court decision in the Vaca case which stated that as a matter of
policy, trial courts should impose fines only for violation of said
law. Meanwhile, the court allowed him to post bail.
Issue:
May one convicted by final judgment be allowed to
post bail?
Held:
No. Sec. 24, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is plain and
clear in prohibiting the grant of bail after conviction by final
judgment and after the convict has started to serve sentence.
The only exception to Sec. 24 is when the convict has applied for
probation before he commences to serve sentence, provided
the penalty and the offense are within the purview of the
Probation Law. Sec. 14 of Rule 102 applies only to cases where
the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus is restrained by virtue
of a criminal charge against him and not in an instance, as in the
case involved in the present controversy, where the applicant is
serving sentence by reason of a final judgment.

Sec. 25

Court Supervision of Detainees:
1. The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody
for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention;
2. The executive judges of the RTCs shall:
1. conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial,
city, and municipal jails and the prisoners within their respective
jurisdictions,
2. ascertain the number of detainess,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


3. inquire on their proper accommodations and health
4. examine the condition of the jail facilities,
5. order the segregation of sexes and of minors from
adults,
6. ensure the observance of the right of detainees to
confer privately with counsel, and
7. strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the
detainees;
3. In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme
Court, the MTC judges shall:
1. conduct monthly personal inspections of the
municipal jails in their respective municipalities, and
2. submit a report to the executive judge of the RTC
having jurisdiction therein;
4. A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the
executive judges to the Court Administrator which shall state:
1. the total number of detainees,
2. the names of those held for more than 30 days,
3. the duration of detention,
4. the crime charged,
5. the status of the case,
6. the cause for detention, and
7. other pertinent information.

SEC. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of
or irregular preliminary investigation.
Section 26 is a new provision.

Effects on illegal arrest
1. Effect of application or admission to bail It shall not bar the
accused from:
1. Challenging:
1. the validity of his arrest, or
2. the legality of the warrant issued therefor; or
2. Assailing the regularity of or questioning the absence
of a PI of the
charge against him [provided that he raises them
before entering his plea]
2. Requisite for accused to be entitled to the above:
He must raise them before entering his plea
3. When the court shall resolve the matter on whether or not to
grant bail:
As early as practicable but not later than the start of
the trial of the case
Admission to bail before arraignment
Facts:
Accused was charged with Plunder before the
Sandiganbayan and he applied for bail. The court insisted that
he should be arraigned first before the hearing on his bail
application can proceed. When he refused to be arraigned, the
Sandiganbayan entered a plea of not guilty for him.
Issue:
Whether or not accused should first be arraigned
before hearings on his petition for bail may be conducted?
Held:
No. The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite
to the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is
allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty
by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. To condition the
grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to
place him in a position where he has to choose between: (1)
filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail
because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his
arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a
motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and
thereafter be released on bail. This would undermine his
constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon a valid
complaint or Information sufficient to charge him with a crime
and his right to bail.
Effect of bail on right to preliminary investigation
Yusop v. Sandiganbayan, 352 SCRA 587
Question:
Is the filing of a bail bond a waiver of the right to a
preliminary investigation?
Answer:
No. Under Sec. 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, an application for or admission to bail shall
not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the
regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises
them before entering his plea.
Effect of bail on question of legality of arrest
Okabe v. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685
Facts:
Accused was charged with estafa and the RTC issued
a warrant for her arrest. After posting bail bond of P40,000 on
July 15, 2000, she filed a motion for judicial determination of
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


probable cause and to defer proceedings. The RTC denied her
motion reasoning that the posting of bail resulted to the waiver
of her right to question the finding of probable cause for her
arrest. The CA affirmed the RTC.
Issue:
Did the posting of the bail bond by the accused for her
personal liberty result to waiver of her right to question the courts
finding of probable cause for her arrest?
Held:
No. Sec. 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides that the application and admission to bail
shall not bar accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
the legality of the warrant issued therefore.
This is a new provision intended to modify previous
rulings of that an application for bail or the admission to bail by
the accused shall be considered as a waiver of his right to assail
the warrant issued for his arrest on the legalities or irregularities
thereon. It is curative in nature because precisely, it was
designed to cure defects and curb evils in procedural rules.
Petition for bail and motion to quash
Issue:
May an accused file a motion to quash during the
pendency of his petition for bail?
Held:
Yes. No inconsistency exists between an application of
an accused for bail and his filing of a motion to quash. These 2
reliefs have objectives which are not necessarily antithetical to
each other. Certainly, the right of an accused to seek provisional
liberty when charged with an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or when charged with
an offense punishable by such penalties but after due hearing,
evidence of his guilt is found not to be strong, does not preclude
his right to assail the validity of the Information charging him with
such offense. However, if a motion to quash a criminal complaint
or information on the ground that the same does not charge
any offense is granted and the case is dismissed and the
accused is ordered released, the petition for bail of an accused
may become moot and academic.

c.) Motion To Quash Warrant of Arrest(section 26 Rule
114)
Section 26 is a new provision.

If you post bail, are you under estoppel to question the validity of
the arrest or the regularity or absence of a preliminary
investigation?
Under Section 26, NO. The pivotal point is for as long as you
have not yet entered your plea. Once you entered your plea, all
the defects are considered waived. But the posting of bail alone
is not considered as waiver to raise such issue.

What are the grounds for the quashal of the warrant of arrest?

The accused may move for the quashal of the warrant of arrest
in accordance with the provision of Section 26, Rule 114 and
other pertinent provisions of the rules, based on the following
grounds:

a) Illegality of the arrest;
b) Illegality of the warrant of arrest; and
c) Lack or absence of preliminary investigation.

The remedy of the accused is to file a motion to quash (Rule 117)
if the ground is the irregularity of his arrest or irregularity of the
warrant of arrest, or a motion for preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation, if the ground is lack or irregularity in the conduct
of the preliminary investigation.(Luciano vs. Mariano, 40 SCRA
187)

d.) Motion To Conduct Preliminary Investigation
and/or Reinvestigation(Sec. 7 par. 3 Rule 112)
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a
preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days
from the time he learns of its filing, ask for preliminary
investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his
defense as provided in this Rule.

N. Bail - R114

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

N. Bail - R114

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Вам также может понравиться