You are on page 1of 3

BAIL CASE DIGESTS July 27 respondent judge inhibited and ordered the case

forwarded to branch 33 presided over by Judge Bulado.


#2 225 SCRA 110 However, the latter also inhibited since prosecution witness
EVANGELINE L. DINAPOL, complainant, Alfredo Bulado is his first cousin or a relative within the
vs. fourth civil degree; Judge Bulado decreed the return of the
JUDGE ISMAEL O. BALDADO, Regional Trial Court, Branch case to the court of origin
45, Bais City, respondent. Respondent Judge alleges that (a) there is no clear and direct
proof to support the allegation that both accused were in his
In this case complainant charges the respondent Judge with grave chambers for, as a matter of fact, the Prosecutor himself, in
abuse of discretion, ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming a his Reply of 9 July 1992, admits that the said allegation "is
member of the bench in entertaining the accuseds (spouses Crozoro not of our personal knowledge"; (b) "not a single politician
Palermo and Jovy Palermo) petition for bail and setting the same for has made interventions or at least insinuate (sic) to intervene,
hearing despite opposition of complaining witness. in any case pending before him"; and (c) there are parties
working "behind the scene of this malicious charge" against
Facts: whom he will, in due time, undertake legal recourse.
He did not, however, categorically deny the charge that the
February 28, 1992 an information for murder was filed
accused were in his chambers after the motion for bail was
before the respondent Judges sala.
filed, and the allegation that a congressman sponsored his
March 3 - the respondent Judge issued a warrant for the
appointment to the Judiciary.
arrest of the accused.
March 9 accused filed a motion to grant and fix bail which Issue: WON the accused in the said murder case can move for the
respondent judge set for hearing on April 24 granting of bail.
April 10 Evangeline Dinapol, the complaining witness and
a sister of the victim in the murder case filed a vigorous Ruling:
opposition to the motion.
No. The accused may not move for the granting of bail.
April 24 accused did not appear; respondent Judge issued
an order (a) denying the motion to grant bail on the ground Section 1 Rule 114 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
that the court "has not acquired jurisdiction over the person that Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of
of the accused," (b) ordering the issuance of an alias warrant the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
of arrest and (c) directing the PNP of Guihulngan "to exert appearance before any court as required under the conditions"
utmost efforts for the arrest of the accused specified in Section 2 thereof. A person is considered to be in the
On that same date, however, the accused this time through custody of the law (a) when he is arrested either by virtue of a warrant
Atty. Alfonso Briones filed an urgent motion for the of arrest issued pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112, or even without a
reconsideration of the 24 April 1992 Order on the ground warrant under Section 5, Rule 113 in relation to Section 7, Rule 112 of
that "the accused are forthcoming, and are willing to the Revised Rules of Court, or (b) when he has voluntarily submitted
voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Court" himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper
May 4 resetting the hearing of the motion to grant and fix authorities. Elsewise stated, the purpose of requiring bail is to relieve
bail for May 7, subject to the condition that "the accused an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his
shall surrender to the custody of the court." Respondent appearance at the trial. An accused can move for the granting of bail
Judge further directed the issuance of subpoenas to the only if the court has acquired jurisdiction over his person.
prosecution witnesses and warned the prosecution "that
failure to present evidence on said date without justifiable However, "only those persons who have been either arrested, detained
reason will be considered as lack of strength of its evidence" or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever have occasion to seek
May 7 accused failed to appear on the set date; the the benefits of said provision. Thus, it logically follows that no petition
respondent Judge issued on the said date an order resetting, for bail can be validly entertained for as long as the petitioner is NOT
once again, the hearing of the motion for 30 June and 1 and in the custody of the law.
3 July 1992. This extension was, however, subjected to the
condition that "on or before June 30, 1992, accused shall Since the accused in Criminal Case No. 775-G were not arrested by
have voluntarily surrendered and submitted themselves to virtue of both the original warrant arrest and the alias warrant of arrest,
the custody of this court and did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court, they
June 19 - warrant had not been duly served as the accused had no standing in court to file a motion for bail. Nor did the court have
"are not found here in Guihulngan, Negros Oriental," and the any business setting the same for hearing. By setting the said motion
information gathered that they were temporarily residing in for hearing despite the fact that his court had not yet acquired
Cebu City proved to be false jurisdiction over the persons of the accused, the respondent Judge
Prosecution filed a "Motion Entreating Hon. Ismael O. blatantly disregarded established rule and settled jurisprudence. While
Baldado to Consider Whether or Not to Continue Presiding he subsequently rectified his error by denying the motion in his Order
Over the Above-Entitled Case." Alleged therein that the of 24 April 1992, he nevertheless backtracked by granting the motion
respondent Judge had acted with patent bias and partiality in for reconsideration and setting anew the hearing of the motion for bail
the accused's favor as may be gleaned from his (Judge's) this time with a warning to the prosecution that its failure to present
actuations as above-indicated, and from the fact that "the two evidence on the scheduled date "will be considered as lack of strength
(2) accused . . . have even been seen conspicuously after the of its evidence." We find neither rhyme nor reason for this warning
filing of the petition for bail inside the Chambers of this because if there was any party to be warned, it should have been the
Court [RTC] accompanied by a younger brother of a accused who had abused the liberality of the respondent Judge and
congressman. belittled the authority of the court.
No. A person released on bail do not have an unrestricted right to
travel.
#9 142 SCRA 149

RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner, A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving
vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and
function of a bail bond.
Facts:
Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security
Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of
stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance
Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Having transferred the may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.
management of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds
no officer-position in said business, but acts as president of the former Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the
corporation. burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to put
the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in
Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the
Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction, petitioner, who was then in accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may
the United States, came home, and together with his co-stockholders, require of him.
filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all
Securities, Inc., but likewise for Trans-Insular Management, Inc. The times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid
petition relative to the Manotoc Securities, Inc., docketed as SEC Case restriction on his right to travel.
No. 001826, entitled, "In the Matter of the Appointment of a
Management Committee for Manotoc Securities, Inc., Teodoro Kalaw, Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without
Jr., Ricardo Manotoc, Jr., Petitioners", was granted and a management sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.
committee was organized and appointed.
The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or filed
Pending disposition of SEC Case No. 001826, the Securities and of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the
Exchange Commission requested the then Commissioner of custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their
Immigration, Edmundo Reyes, not to clear petitioner for departure. charge to keepers of his own selection. Such custody has been regarded
merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The sureties
When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities, become invested with full authority over the person of the principal
Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six of its clients filed six separate and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state. 14
criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul Leveriza, Jr., as
president and vice-president, respectively, of Manotoc Securities, Inc. If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the
In due course, corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive
the investigating fiscal. such right, and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal
remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. In fact, this
In all cases, petitioner has been admitted to bail in the total amount of inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself,
P105,000.00, with FGU Instance Corporation as surety. notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the
country, for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave
On March 1, 1982, petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a the country in the first place, if it were otherwise.
motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country," stating
as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to his
In this case, petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed
business transactions and opportunities." 1 The prosecution opposed
travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. Petitioner merely
said motion and after due hearing, both trial judges denied the same. alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash
indemnities. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before CA
without the assent of the surety because in accepting a bail bond or
which was then dismissed. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's
recognizance, the government impliedly agrees "that it will not take
ruling, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of the
Pending resolution of the petition to which we gave due course on sureties or affect their remedies against him. Under this rule, the surety
April 14, 1983 6 petitioner filed on August 15, 1984 a motion for leave on a bail bond or recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation
to go abroad pendente lite. 7 In his motion, petitioner stated that his inconsistent with the conditions thereof, which is made without his
presence in Louisiana, U.S.A. is needed in connection "with the assent. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or agreement to
obtention of foreign investment in Manotoc Securities, Inc." 8 He postpone the trial until after the final disposition of other cases, or to
attached the letter dated August 9, 1984 of the chief executive officer permit the principal to leave the state or country." 16 Thus, although the
of the Exploration Company of Louisiana, Inc., Mr. Marsden W. order of March 26, 1982 issued by Judge Pronove has been rendered
Miller 9 requesting his presence in the United States to "meet the moot and academic by the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal
people and companies who would be involved in its investments." cases pending before said judge, we see the rationale behind said order.

Issue: WON a person facing a criminal indictment and The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an
provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel. absolute right. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states:

Ruling:
The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health.

To our mind, the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail
constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted
constitutional provision.