BAIL

1. Paderanga vs. CA

FACTS:

· Miguel P. Paderanga was included in an amended information for the crime of multiple murder as the mastermind.

· Paderanga, through his counsel, filed a Motion for Admission of Bail before a Warrant of Arrest could be issued by
the lower court.

· Paderanga was unable to appear for the hearing due to an ailment that needed medical attention. His counsel
manifested that they were submitting custody over the person of their client to the local chapter president of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and that, for purposes of said hearing, he considered being in the custody of the law.

· The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on his right to bail

Bail defined

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee
his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of
corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.

ISSUE:

· W/N it is proper to admit bail even though petitioner is not yet in custody of law

RULING:

NO.

Right to bail is only extended only to those persons who have been arrested, detained, or otherwise deprived of their
freedom

A person is considered to be in the custody of the law:

when he is arrested either by virtue of warrant of arrest or by warrantless arrest

when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities

In the foregoing facts, petitioner can be considered as being constructively and legally under custody

Through his lawyers, he expressly submitted to physical and legal control over his person:

firstly, by filing the application for bail with the trial court

secondly, by furnishing true information of his actual whereabouts;

thirdly, by unequivocally recognizing the jurisdiction of the said 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

· an arrest is made either by: 1. actual restraint of the arrestee or 2. 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 case of military
offenders, by being "confined to quarters" or restricted to the military camp area.
2. People vs. Escobar

Facts:

- This Rule 45 Petition assails the Court of Appeals Decision to grant the accused's second petition for bail.
- Respondent Manuel Escobar (Escobar) filed a petition for bail (First Bail Petition), which was denied by the
Regional Trial Court in the Order
- Escobar was suspected of conspiring in the kidnap for ransom of Mary Grace Cheng-Rosagas
- Escobar was arrested on February 14, 2008.
- On June 3, 2008, Escobar filed the First Bail Petition before the Regional Trial Court
- The Petition for Bail filed by accused Manny Escobar is denied for lack of merit
- Escobar appealed before the Court of Appeals
- On March 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmedthe denial of the First Bail Petition.
- Escobar moved to reconsider the Court of Appeals March 8, 2011 Decision.
- then Escobar filed another petition for bail (Second Bail Petition) before the Regional Trial Court.[
RELEVANT
- the Court of Appeals granted[67] the petition for certiorari and ordered the Regional Trial Court to determine the
appropriate bail for Escobar's provisional liberty..
- The Court of Appeals denied the prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration
- According to the Court of Appeals, Escobar's Second Bail Petition was not barred by res judicata, which applies
only if the former judgment is a final order or judgment and not an interlocutory order
- the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Review

Issues:

First, whether Manuel Escobar's second petition for bail is barred by res judicata; andFinally, whether respondent
should be granted bail.

imprisonment

Ruling:

Escobar's Second Bail Petition is not barred by res judicata as this doctrine is not recognized in criminal
proceedings.

Expressly applicable in civil cases, res judicata settles with finality the dispute between the parties or their
successors-in-interest.[108] Trinidad v. Marcelo[109] declares that res judicata, as found in Rule 39 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, is a principle in civil law and "has no bearing on criminal proceedings."

Indeed, while certain provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in criminal cases,[111] Rule 39 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure is excluded from the enumeration under Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure. In Trinidad:[112]Petitioner's arguments — that res judicata applies since the Office of the Ombudsman
twice found no sufficient basis to indict him in similar cases earlier filed against him, and that the Agan cases
cannot be a supervening event or evidence per se to warrant a reinvestigation on the same set of facts and
circumstances — do not lie.

An interlocutory order denying an application for bail, in this case being criminal in nature, does not give rise to
res judicata. As in Trinidad, even if we are to expand the argument of the prosecution in this case to contemplate
"res judicata in prison grey" or double jeopardy, the same will still not apply.[114] Double jeopardy requires that
the accused has been convicted or acquitted or that the case against him or her has been dismissed or terminated
without his express consent.[115] Here, while there was an initial ruling on Escobar's First Bail Petition, Escobar
has not been convicted, acquitted, or has had his case dismissed or terminated.

Even assuming that this case allows for res judicata as applied in civil cases, Escobar's Second Bail Petition
cannot be barred as there is no final judgment on the merits.

A decision denying a petition for bail settles only a collateral matter[124]—whether accused is entitled to
provisional liberty—and is not a final judgment on accused's guilt or innocence. Unlike in a full-blown trial, a
hearing for bail is summary in nature: it deliberately "avoid[s] unnecessary thoroughness" and does not try the
merits of the case.

Here, the prosecution itself has acknowledged that "the first order denying bail is an interlocutory order."[127]
The merits of the case for kidnapping must still be threshed out in a full-blown proceeding.

Being an interlocutory order, the March 8, 2011 Court of Appeals Decision denying Escobar's First Bail Petition
did not have the effect of res judicata.

In light of the circumstances after the denial of Escobar's First Bail Petition, his Second Bail Petition should have
been given due course. It should not be denied on the technical ground of res judicata.

Escobar may be provisionally released if he indeed has paid the surety bond that must be contained in a public
document and approved by the Regional Trial Court judge. Otherwise, he is directed to post bail.

Principles:

Res judicata applies only in a final judgment in a civil case,[1] not in an interlocutory order in a criminal case.[2]
An order disposing a petition for bail is interlocutory.[3] This order does not attain finality when a new matter
warrants a second look on the application for bail.
 3. Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan,

Doctrines:

Primary objective of bail – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good measure of the accused's propensity for
flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to ensure that the accused
appears at trial.

Bail is a right and a matter of discretion – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeted
in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.”

FACTS:

On June 5, 2014, Petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his
purported involvement in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) Scam. Initially, Enrile in an Omnibus
Motion requested to post bail, which the Sandiganbayan denied. On July 3, 2014, a warrant for Enrile's arrest was issued,
leading to Petitioner's voluntary surrender.

Petitioner again asked the Sandiganbayan in a Motion to Fix Bail which was heard by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner
argued that: (a) Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (b) that, because of his
advanced age and voluntary surrender, the penalty would only be reclusion temporal, thus allowing for bail and; (c) he is
not a flight risk due to his age and physical condition. Sandiganbayan denied this in its assailed resolution. Motion for
Reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not bail may be granted as a matter of right unless the crime charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua
where the evidence of guilt is strong.

a. Whether or not prosecution failed to show that if ever petitioner would be convicted, he will be punishable by reclusion
perpetua.

b. Whether or not prosecution failed to show that petitioner's guilt is strong.

2. Whether or not petitioner is bailable because he is not a flight risk.

HELD:

1. YES.

Bail as a matter of right – due process and presumption of innocence.

Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. This right is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail.
 - The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial and so the amount of bail should be high
enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but no higher than what may be reasonably
calculated to fulfill this purpose.

Bail as a matter of discretion

- Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeted in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure to wit:
- Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

The general rule: Any person, before conviction of any criminal offense, shall be bailable.

Exception: Unless he is charged with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua [or life imprisonment] and the
evidence of his guilt is strong.

- Thus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong. Where
evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted according to the discretion of the court.

2. YES.

Petitioner's poor health justifies his admission to bail

- The Supreme Court took note of the Philippine's responsibility to the international community arising from its
commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We therefore have the responsibility of protecting
and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process and for detainees to avail of such remedies
which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty
- Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion
- Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial
and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Petitioner. As such the
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Fix Bail. It acted whimsical and
capriciously and was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty [to allow petitioner to post
bail].
4. People vs. Villanueva

Facts:

- On 25 April 2007, AAA ran away from home after finding out that she was adopted and after being scolded by
her mother, who became the private complainant in this case.
- The friends of AAA informed private complainant that AAA was staying at the On Tap Videoke Bar, working as
a Guest Relations Officer.
- Private complainant was then accompanied by the police task force to rescue AAA.
- After the operation, AAA was taken to the SPD headquarters, together with accused-appellant and five (5) other
videoke bar employees who were without the necessary Mayor's and Health Permits. Private complainant
executed a complaint-affidavit against On Tap Videoke Bar and AAA was endorsed to the Social Development
Center of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)-Las Pinas. Accused-appellant and the five
(5) apprehended employees were booked, investigated and underwent medical examinations.
- Prosecutor charged accused-appellant with human trafficking under R.A. 9208, instead of violation of R.A. 7610
for the reason that accused-appellant "recruited and exploited AAA, a 13-year old minor, to work as a GRO in her
bar by taking advantage of her vulnerability as a child."8chanrobleslaw
- Petition for Bail was filed by accused-appellant, alleging that the evidence of guilt was not strong. The
prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2 Abas and the private complainant to prove otherwise.
- The Petition for Bail was granted by the court and accused-appellant was allowed to post bail.
- Villanueva, Jr. was the second witness for the defense. He testified as to the circumstances surrounding AAA's
stay in the videoke bar. He claimed that while he was on vacation, his father took over the management of the
videoke bar and allowed the temporary stay of AAA, upon the request of their employee.
- Accused-appellant vehemently denied hiring and/or recruiting AAA as a GRO, insisting that she was not
involved in the day-to-day operations.

Issue:

whether the circumstantial pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution inexorably lead to the conclusion that accused-
appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking

Ruling:

- Reproduction at trial of evidence

presented in the bail hearing

The prosecution manifested that they will adopt the evidence presented during the hearing of the Petition for Bail
as the same evidence in the main case, with a further manifestation that other witnesses will be presented during
the trial. In fact, a side by side comparison of the RTC Order granting accused-appellant's petition for bail and the
RTC Decision convicting accused-appellant would reveal that summaries of witnesses' testimonies contained in
the former were merely lifted and copied verbatim in the latter.
- It should be noted that when the prosecution witnesses were presented during the bail hearing, they were
subjected to cross, re-direct and re-cross-examinations, as well as inquiries by the court; thus, as expected, the
court no longer recalled the witnesses for additional examination during the trial. Unfortunately for the
prosecution, they were only able to present one more witness, PCI Balbontin, before they finally rested their case.

While the Court is aware that a bail hearing is merely for the purpose if determining whether the evidence of guilt
is strong and that the same is not an adjudication upon the merits, we note that in the case at bar, the RTC Order
granting the petition for bail casts doubt upon accused-appellant's conviction. In its Order granting the petition for
bail, the RTC noted that none of the prosecution witnesses testified as to the fact of hiring and recruitment.
Considering that the only additional witness the prosecution presented during trial was PCI Balbontin, it baffles
 this Court why the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt when the Chief Inspector's
testimony was limited to procedural details regarding the filing of the complaint, forming of the task force and the
interview conducted by the TV crew. If the Chief Inspector's additional testimony was only limited to those
matters, it follows that when the prosecution rested its case, not one of their witnesses testified as to the fact of
hiring and recruitment and neither did the documentary evidence submitted establish the same. Before this Court
is essentially the same set of evidence that was evaluated by the RTC when it ruled that the evidence of guilt was
not strong; we thus see no reason why the same set of evidence, only supplemented by a testimony regarding
irrelevant procedural matters, would warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that the Constitution presumes a person is innocent
until he is proven guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Countless times, this Court has elucidated that the
evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own weight and not rely on the weakness of the defense.
- The prosecution cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense's evidence for it has the
onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused. In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution failed to pass the test of moral certainty necessary to warrant accused-appellant's conviction. From the
foregoing, we rule that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving accused-appellant's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED.

5. People vs. Brita

Facts:

- Appellant is accused of illegally selling and possessing shabu

- He pleaded not guilty
- appellant filed a Petition for Bail.
- CA AND RTC RULING: accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
- Appellant claims that the presumption of innocence cannot be overcome by the disputable presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty. Besides, there is reason to doubt the credibility of the police officers
as prosecution witnesses since there were inconsistencies in their testimonies. He further argues that the grant of
bail in his favor means that the evidence of guilt is not strong. He also questions the chain of custody of the seized
specimen.
- The contentions of appellant deserve scant consideration.
- The Court agrees with the CA that the testimonies of PO2 Tejero and PO3 Orias established beyond reasonable
doubt appellant's culpability. Their narrations of what really transpired in the afternoon of October 23, 2002, from
the moment the confidential infonnant disclosed to their chief the illegal activities of appellant up to the time of
his arrest, deserve great respect and credence as the same emanated from the direct account of law enforcement
officers who enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
- It should be noted that "[ujnless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team
were inspired by any improper motive or [did] not properly [perform] their duty, their testimonies on the
operation deserve full faith and credit."[18] Moreover, while appellant is correct that the presumption of regularity
should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, still, he must be able to present a viable defense.
Here, what appellant interposed is merely denial and a claim of frame-up. "[F]or the claim of frame-up to prosper,
the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome [the] presumption of
regularity,"[19] which it failed to do. Hence, the Court finds no error on the part of the courts below in upholding
the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation.

Anent the alleged inconsistencies[20] pointed out by appellant, the same were too trivial and inconsequential. They
did not deal with the central fact of the crime. It has been repeatedly held that "a few discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the
central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility."[21]
- Appellant asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his claim that the evidence of the prosecution is not strong enough
to prove his guilt. The Court is not convinced. "[A] grant of bail does not prevent [the trial court, as] the trier of
facts, x x x from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits."[22]
- As the Court ruled in People v. Baldoz,[23] "[s]uch appreciation [of evidence] is at best preliminary and should not
prevent the trial judge from making a final assessment of the evidence before him after full trial. It is not an
uncommon occurrence that an accused person granted bail is convicted in due course."[24]
- Finally, appellant makes much of the fact that the police operatives failed to comply with the requirements of the
law with regard the handling of evidence, specifically the absence of the required physical inventory and
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to Section 21, par. 1, Article II of RA 9165 as implemented by
Section 21 (a), Article II of its Implementing Rules and Regulations.[25]However, it must be pointed out that it was
only during appeal that appellant raised these alleged breaches in the custody and handling of the seized evidence.
During trial, the item object of the sale was duly marked, subjected to rigid examination, and eventually offered as
evidence. Yet, at no instance did appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in its safekeeping which
affected its admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. Indeed, such failure to raise this issue during trial is fatal
to the case of the defense as held by this Court in People v. Sta. Maria[26] and in subsequent cases.[27] Besides,
mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
can be shown to have been preserved.[28] In this regard, the Court quotes with favor the CA's disquisition on chain
of custody,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED.