PEOPLE vs.

DONATO
G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991
DAVIDE, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Private respondent Rodolfo Salas, alias "Commander Bilog", and his co-accused were charged for
the crime of rebellion. The former escaped while under the military custody and detention and a cash
reward of P250,000.00 was offered for his capture.

Salas, together with his co-accused later filed a petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but was
dismissed on the basis of the agreement of the parties under which Salas "will remain in legal
custody and will face trial before the court having custody over his person" and his co-accused shall
be released but shall submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their person.

Later on, Salas filed a petition for bail, which petitioner opposed on the ground that since rebellion
became a capital offense under the provisions of P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834, which amended
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death on
those who promote, maintain, or head a rebellion the accused is no longer entitled to bail as
evidence of his guilt is strong.

On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order 187 restoring to full force the original penalty
for rebellion, prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.00, which makes it bailable.

Hence, respondent judge granted the bail of the private respondents.

The prosecution argued that Salas is prohibited from filing bail because he has waived his right to
bail when he withdrew his petition for habeas corpus as a sign of agreement that he will be held in
custody.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the granting of bail was valid?

Whether or not the waiver of right to bail was valid?

RULINGS:

No, bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua such as rebellion. Thus, respondent right to bail cannot be denied.
However, having agreed in G.R. No. 76009 to remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having
custody over his person., private respondent had clearly waived his right to bail, therefore the granting of
bail of the respondent judge was null and void.

Yes, 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.