Rule 114 - Inigo

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
Rule 114
Bail
Rule 114
BAIL
Q: Define Bail.
A: Under Section 1:
SECTION 1. Bail defined.
person in custody of the law,
appearance before any court
specified. Bail may be given
cash deposit, or recognizance.
Bail is the security given for the release of a

furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his
as required under the conditions hereinafter
in the form of corporate surety, property bond,
(1a)
Ano ba yang bail? Pyansa! As a general rule, once a case is filed in court and there is
probable cause, the judge will issue a warrant. So sa presohan ka. Paano yan because you
are still presumed innocent? Ang tawag diyan is preventive detention. 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.
Q: And what is the primary purpose of bail?
A: 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.
Now, let us go to 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?
A: That issue bugged the Supreme Court several times prior to the 1987 Constitution
where the SC gave conflicting answers.
In the case of NAVA VS. GATMAITAN, (90 Phil. 172) the SC said, Yes, he is entitled to
bail once the case has been filed in court. At least 5 out of 9 justices said that. Very close
fight! Once the case is filed in court, the right to bail can be availed of. So, the right to bail
is different from the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
But when that issue came out during the martial law regime, the SC gave a different
answer eh. So, that issue came out again in the case of BUSCAYNO VS. MILITARY
COMMISSION (109 SCRA 273), GARCIA-PADILLA VS. ENRILE (121 SCRA 472). Is there a
right to bail when the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended? Ang sabi ng
Supreme Court, NO! because the governments campaign to suppress rebellion might be
ineffective. Captured rebels, would no doubt rejoin their comrades in the field and
jeopardize the success of the government efforts to end the rebellion. That sounds logical.
Just imagine, why are you suspending the privilege of the writ? To arrest suspected rebels.
Pag naaresto, and then entitled to bail, balik na naman sila sa mga kasama nila! Anong
klaseng campaign ito? That is the reasoning in the case of Buscayno and Ponce Enrile.
I think that debate is already moot and academic. There is now 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. Talagang settled na.
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
91

Rule 114
Bail
Another interesting case on bail. These are the cases that cropped up after the 1989
coup d etat attempt against Cory Aquino because some of the RAM suspects were
detained. Many of them were detained because of court martial charges. They are
charged for violating military law pero nakakulong sila. Some of them applied for bail.
Q: Are the same military officers facing charges before a court martial entitled to bail?
A: In COMMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA (200 SCRA 80) the SC said: NO, the right to bail
has traditionally not been recognized and it is not available in the military as an exception
to the general rule as embodied in the Bill of Rights. There is no such thing as bail in the
military. So, thats an exception to the general rule. The right to speedy trial is given
more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.
The dissenter in the case of Commendador is Abraham Sarmiento. Diyan mo makikita
pagiging humanitarian lawyer niya. During the time of Marcos he hates the military [gi-lubot
siguro siya]. But he was the one who said that they are entitled to bail [nalamian siguro siya]
because sabi niya, according to the majority the right to bail has traditionally hot been
recognized in the military. Ive been looking in the bill of rights and I cannot find that
exception. Where did the majority get that? You mean to tell me the military before are not
citizens of the Philippines anymore? According to Isagani Cruz who is the ponente in that
case, They are not entitled to bail as a matter of tradition in the military! Sarmiento:
No! We are a government of laws, not a government of traditions. Mag-isa lang siya,
wala siyang nagawa.
PROBLEM: Tato is charged with a capital crime. So, no bail. Ayaw mag-surrender. Gusto
niya bail muna bago surrender. (Anyway, even if you are charged with a capital crime, you
can file a petition for bail.) But he got a lawyer and the lawyer filed a petition for bail in his
behalf.
Q: In this case, can Tato apply for bail?
A: NO. The SC said, We cannot entertain the petition for bail because Tato is not in
custody! Simple: what is the definition of bail? Security given for the release of a person
in custody of law. You are even at large then youre asking for bail? Surrender first bago
ka makahingi ng bail. (Marigbasa vs. Luna, 98 Phil. 466; Feliciano vs. Pasicolan, July 31,
1961)
Q: 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. (Panderanga vs. CA, 247 SCRA 41)
PANDERANGA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
247 SCRA 417
FACTS: This case originated in CDO. The accused was charged of murder
non-bailable. So, ayaw niyang magpahuli. Pero actually, he wants to face the
case pero dapat lang may bail. Pero problema niya how can he file a petition for
bail when you are not even in custody? (In custody, you have to surrender or
you must be arrested. Kaya nga ayaw niya yun eh. As much as possible, pagsurrender niya, meron ng bail. Then what happened?) He entered the hospital,
may sakit daw and 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? Sabi ng court, [Sure!] OK, lets proceed.
ISSUE: Is the accused already in custody? Can the court entertain his
petition for bail even if he was not arrested, and the lawyer said he was in the
hospital and the court never bothered to ask a policeman to go there, check,
verify, bantayan mo yung hospital until he gets well?
HELD: YES, he is already in the CONSTRUCTIVE custody of the law. It may
Lakas Atenista
92

Rule 114
Bail
be conceded that he 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. The undeniable fact is that Panderanga was
by then in the constructive custody of the law.
Q: What are the types of bail?
A: There are four (4) types of bail under Section 1:
1. Corporate surety;
2. Property bond ;
3. Cash deposit; and
4. Recognizance.
Q: What are the conditions of a bail?
A: Section 2:
SEC. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. All kinds of bail are
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled,
shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was
originally filed in or appealed to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by
the court of these Rules;
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification
and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present
thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of
the final judgment.
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused,
the amount of the undertaking and the conditions required by this section.
Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the
face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the bail. (2a)
Q: So, for example in the MTC, you are arrested, natalo ka, you will appeal. How about
pag-appeal mo sa RTC, what will happen to your bail?
A: Tuloy-tuloy pa rin yan because under paragraph [a], your bail is effective up to the
RTC.
Q: Another example: na-convict ka sa RTC and you want to go to the CA, are you still
entitled to bail?
A: The answer is MAYBE. This is one instance where bail is discretionary.
Q: But assuming that the court will say, OK, you are entitled to bail on appeal. What
happens now to your bail?
A: 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. In the 85 Rules, iba naman the bail is
tuloy-tuloy up to the CA. Now, RTC level lang. You have to ask for another bail bond if you
want to go further to the CA. So, its back to the 64 rules no?
Q: 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?
A: Generally, ARRAIGNMENT or PROMULGATION lalo na pag convicted ka. But there are
others for example, lets read Rule 115 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, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for
purposes of identification. x x x x x x
Lakas Atenista
93

Rule 114
Bail
That is one instance where the court may require his presence. His presence there is
not a privilege but an obligation.
Q: Now supposed you failed to appear in court without justification. Like for example,
you escaped, you jumped bail and disappeared? What will happen to the case?
A: Tuloy pa rin according to paragraph [c] because that would be a waiver of your right.
Q: Anong tawag niyan?
A: TRIAL IN ABSENTIA pursuant to Section 14, 2nd paragraph, Article 2 of the
Constitution.
Q: A bail bond required the bondsmen to pay the fine of the accused, in addition to
the usual condition. Is this additional condition valid?
A: 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 may not impose additional conditions 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)
Q: 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?
A: 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)
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)
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

Q: When is bail a matter of right?
A: Section 4:
SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. All persons in custody shall
be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released
on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule (a)before or after conviction
by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the
Regional Trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment. (4a)
Q: So you are charged in the MTC; no conviction yet. So you are still an innocent. Are
you entitled to bail?
A: Yes, as a matter of right.
Q: Suppose you have been convicted already, found guilty by the MTC, maybe
sentenced to 2 years imprisonment but you would like to appeal to the RTC. While your
appeal is going on, can you still post bail?
A: YES. Whether it is before or after conviction by the MTC, bail is a matter of right.
Lakas Atenista
94

Rule 114
Bail
Q: But suppose you are charged in the RTC, for example homicide punishable by
reclusion temporal, are you entitled to bail?
A: YES, it is also a matter of right. For as long as the prescribed penalty is not life
imprisonment, perpetua or death, it is a matter of right. So, up to reclusion temporal it is a
matter of right.
So based on the provision of law, let us try to outline
Q: When is bail a matter of right:
A: Bail is a matter of right
1. Before conviction by the MTC, MTC, or MCTC (Section 4 [a]);
2. After conviction by the MTC (Section 4 [a]);
3. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment (Section 4 [b])
4. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death reclusion or life
imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong. (People vs. Donato, infra)
Under the law, when a person charged in court for example murder, non-bailable man
yan ba. 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.
Q: 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?
A: 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.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION

Q: When is bail discretionary? Meaning, the court may grant bail or may not grant bail.
A: Section 5:
SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. 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. However, if the decision of the trial court conviction 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.
x x x x
Q: Supposed you are charged with homicide. The maximum penalty there is temporal.
You are convicted. The court found you guilty of homicide. It sentenced you to 20 years
imprisonment and you would like to appeal. Can you ask for bail?
A: YES.
Q: What will the court do?
A: The court may or may not grant. Yan ang discretion.
Now, the second sentence is new:
Lakas Atenista
95

Rule 114
Bail
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

OMOSA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
266 SCRA 281, January 16, 1997
FACTS: The court convicted the accused for homicide. So temporal. The
accused said: Your honor, we intend to appeal this case but may we be asked 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. Dapat, inuna muna
yung approval of bail bago mag-file ng notice of appeal. When the court fixed the
bail, he has must not yet filed his notice of appeal, so the court has the power to
fix the bail. The trouble is he immediately filed a notice of appeal bago niya
ging-post ang bail. So the court has no more jurisdiction to approve the bail. It
should have been approved by the Court of Appeals.
That is the ruling in the Omosa. 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 Omosa ruling Puwede, provided it has not transmitted the
original record. Based on the Omosa 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, puwede pa 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 conviction 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 Omosa vs. CA, supra.
In the case of Omosa, 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 discretionary in the court. If he was convicted for murder, wala talagang pagasa. 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 the penalty of murder would be imposed, then there should
be no bail. That was the ruling of Omosa 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 Omosa which is also now modified. That is the history of that provision.
Alright. Now let us go to the second paragraph:
Lakas Atenista
96

Rule 114
Bail
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)
That is more or less an exception to Section 2[a] that we already discussed. When you
are charged in the RTC and you post bail, the bail is good up to when? 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. Nasa court yan kung gustong ipatuloy. Puwede rin yun. Ok.
We will continue, subject to the consent of the bondsman. That is now the condition. The
bondsman may say, Delikado na ito, baka ma-convict na ito. Mamaya baka lumayas na
ito at tumakbo, patay na ako. Ako ang magbabayad.
Alright, 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)
Alright. Let us go back to the basic:

What is the jurisdiction of the RTC? The penalty 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] yan,
sa phrase na yan, bail could be granted on appeal but it is discretionary. However, even if
the bail is granted the prosecution tells the court, Judge, this guy was found guilty of
homicide and you grant bail. Iba pala ito eh because he is 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]. You are a
recidivist; you are habitual delinquent; you have previously escaped from a confinement;
you 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 ba!);
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. The discretion there will not be in your favor.
If the court has already granted, the bail will be cancelled. Take note of that.
Q: When is bail discretionary?
A: Based on that provision, after conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life 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.
Take note of the second instance bail as a matter of discretion. The first instance is
when bail is a matter of right Section 4. When is bail discretion Section 5. Yung Section
4, walang problema, that is absolute even if you are a recidivist.
Lakas Atenista
97

Rule 114
Bail
CASE: The accused was charged with homicide, there was no conviction yet. And then
bail. He jumped bail lumayas! But he was arrested again. When arrested apply na
naman for bail. Binigyan na naman ng bail. After a few months, layas na naman. He
escaped again. Nahuli na naman. And then he applied for bail for the third time. This
time, sabi ng judge, Ayaw ko na. Because of your character, di na puwede 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.
Wala pang conviction. 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)
Q: What is the remedy to this kind of accused? Remedy?
A: Taasan mo ang bail. So magkano bail mo dati? P30,000? Alright, ngayon P70,000 na!
Tingnan natin kung tatakbo pa yan. [putulin kaya ang paa?] 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)
Now, I am amused by what happened in Section 5. Did you hear the promulgation of
the Robillo case one month ago? I dont know how many were convicted. I think 3 or more
were convicted. One of them is a radioman. I know where he hangs around. One day
before the promulgation, he is no longer hanging around. He disappeared already, naamoy na niya siguro. Some were military men.
They were convicted. At least one of them was acquitted. Many were convicted. The
penalty was reclusion perpetua. And after the trial everybody left, including the convicted
accused. I was visiting the jail the following day. The warden was telling me, What
happened to this case? Since yesterday we were expecting the convicted person to be
brought here. Convicted eh.
So I asked the fiscal kung anong nangyari dyan because from what we know, if you are
found guilty for murder, for example, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua on the spot,
you will be sent to jail. Teka muna! Hindi pa final yung conviction! Never mind! You can
appeal but you are now detained indefinitely. Wala nang labas labas yan. From the court
room, diretso ka na sa jail. But the judgment is not yet final? But theres already the
judgment of conviction. Even when theres still no of conviction, when the evidence of
guilt is strong, your bail will be denied. Even in the middle or at the start of the case, if the
evidence of guilt is strong, bail will be denied lalo na kung capital punishment. How much
more here when there is already a judgement of conviction?! Logic! simple logic.
And the branch clerk of court, I think you know her Atty. Morales. She called me up in
the office. Sabi niya, Anong nangyari dito? di ba walang bail yan?. Sabi ko Yes. I
wonder bakit walang bail. Bakit hindi ikinancel? Kailangan daw i-cancel pa ang bail. That
was what the judge said. Sabi ko, NO! The bail is automatically cancelled. That is what I
said so.
Sabi niya (clerk of court), I was pointing to the judge Section 5. Eh sabi niya (judge),
No. Bail is discretionary because of this paragraph 3 if the penalty imposed by the trial
court is imprisonment exceeding 6 years the accused should be denied bail or bail should
be cancelled upon showing by the prosecution with notice of the accused of the following.
Therefore, bail could be granted because the penalty is exceeding 6 years.
That implies that bail is discretionary because in Section 5, the heading is Bail, when
discretionary so hindi cancelled. I said, Tingnan mo ang opening paragraph of Section 5
upon conviction of the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, perpetua or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. So itong paragraph 3, upon 6 years but
less than perpetua. So up to 20 years. We have to connect paragraph 3 with the first
paragraph. Sabi niya (clerk of court), This is what I know eh. Since I am new in this job. I
cannot insist. Dean I: Sabihin mo sa judge na nagkamali sya. Ako ang nagsabi. And
after 2 days, pinacancel niya (judge).
Lakas Atenista
98

Rule 114
Bail
Ive talked that judge. He was my friend personally. When I see him sabi ko nagkamali
ka man dun ba. Dapat yun, on the spot. Thats why everybody is wondering bakit
nakaganun yun. Well, that was his first experience with a capital heinous crime. Dio siya
naiiba eh. Hes not used to trying this kind.
Yung sasabihin mong bail may continue that assumes that the penalty is above 6
years but not more than 20 years. Pag naging perpetua, wala na. Yung wala pang
conviction bail could be denied, lalo na pag may conviction na! The evidence of guilt is
now strong! Its simple logic. That is why this provision will be tricky if we do not know
how to interpret this rule.
WHEN BAIL IS 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)
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. C.f. RA
7659 gives us a list of capital offenses.
SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
life imprisonment, not bailable. No person charged with a capital offense,
an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the state
the criminal prosecution. (7a)
or
or
be
of
This means if the accused is charged with a crime which is punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, there is NO BAIL even at the start of the trial or
even before judgment of conviction, provided that the two (2) conditions are present.
xxx regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution. Meaning, NO BAIL before
conviction. Lalo na pag after conviction!
Thats why I told (Atty.) Evalyn Morales na ipakita mo [sa judge] yung Section 7 xxx
regardless of the state of criminal prosecution. You already found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and sentenced him to perpetua, huwag mo sabihing the evidence of
guilt is not strong! How come you convict him?! Yaan!
Now, this is where lalabas yung application for bail Section 8:
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)
Arestado ka, nakulong ka. Under the law, what is the procedure? You file an application
for bail. And once an application for bail is filed, it is now MANDATORY for the court to
conduct a hearing for the prosecution to present evidence to prove that the guilt is strong,
not guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the latter is conviction na yan!
Ang ibig sabihin niyan, mag-sample ka lang. You present some of the witnesses but not
all. Sample-an mo lang ba. Parang preliminary injunction ba! You present some of your
evidence. after that, the court will now consider whether the evidence of guilt is strong or
not strong.
Either way the court will grant bail or deny bail tuloy pa rin ang trial! Yaan!
Lakas Atenista
99

Rule 114
Bail
Q: What happens now to those witnesses? Balik na naman sila sa trial?

A: NO. Under Section 8, the evidence received during the bail hearing is automatically
reproduced at the trial. Di na kailangang ulitin pa. But you can add more witnesses and
more evidence.
After that, we will now determine if the accused is guilty or not guilty. Yan na ang guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, [Atty.] Ceniza had a problem in Davao Oriental. He told me about it. An offense is,
I think punishable by perpetua or higher. Then pag-hingi ng bail, sabi ng prosecutor, No
objection! Siguro sabi ng court, No objection? O sige, grant bail! The prosecutor did not
present evidence. Meaning, the prosecutor admits that the evidence of guilt is not strong
wala ng hearing!
Puwede ba yan? NO! The SC said that there must be a hearing. Even if the prosecution
will not want to present evidence, the court must require a hearing. And the court cannot
dispense with the hearing.
Lets go to some decided cases.
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.
Assuming na sabi ng prosecution, for tactical reason, we will not object. The court will
still have to conduct a hearing kung pila ang bail. Yaan! You still have to conduct a
hearing. You look at Section 9 Amount of bail; guidelines. In determining how much is the
bail, may mga guidelines eh! So if we will grant bail, at least we will have to find out how
much. These guidelines must be met. So you still have to conduct a hearing.
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, may court order yan. Kailangang i-summarize mo
ang evidence. then you state why you believe 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
Lakas Atenista
100

Rule 114
Bail
HELD: In a hearing for petition for bail, affidavits will not suffice.
Witnesses must be present to testify. Affidavits will suffice only when it
determines probable case 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 for 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 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.
So kahit na sabihin pa ng prosecution that it is not opposing in the application of the
bail, sabi ng SC: Ah, hindi puwedee! The court will have to ask the prosecution, why are
you not opposing? Yaan! 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:
Q: For bail to be denied, what are the requirements?
A: Under the law:
1. the evidence of guilt is strong;
2. the crime is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
3. [based on jurisprudence] if the accused is convicted in all probability the penalty
will also be death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
So you have to look at the probable penalty. This principle has been illustrated in the
case of
BRAVO, JR. vs. BORJA
134 SCRA 466
FACTS: The accused was charged with murder perpetua to death
talagang non-bailable yan. 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. Sabi niya, 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 required 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.
Lakas Atenista
101

Rule 114
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 close it 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 fin 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.
Q: So what are the principle points to remember in the case of Bravo, Jr?
A: 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.
So based on what we have gone so far, let us now try to summarize the instances
under Rule 114 where bail is a matter of right, discretion, or is denied.
Q: When is bail a MATTER OF RIGHT:
A: Bail is a matter of right
Lakas Atenista
102

Rule 114
Bail
1. Before conviction by the MTC, MTC, or MCTC;

2. After conviction by the MTC;
3. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment; and
4. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death reclusion or life
imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong. This is because once the
court finds that the evidence of guilt is strong, bail becomes a matter of right.
Q: When is bail DISCRETIONARY?
A: Bail is discretionary after conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment provided, the case does not fall under the
3rd paragraph of Section 5 [a] [e].
Q: When shall bail be DENIED?
A: The bail shall be denied under the following instances:
1. before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong;
2. after conviction by the RTC and the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. He can appeal but in the meantime, there is no bail; and
3. after conviction by the RTC where the penalty imposed is imprisonment
exceeding 6 years but no more than 20 years, and the case falls under Section 5
[a] [e].
So, recidivist, or you escaped from confinement, or there is undue risk, etc. ayan!
Pagnahulog ka diyan, bail shall not be granted. And this is where the question of Ms.
Masepequea will come in:
Q: Mr. Peloton was charged with a crime (sorry kaayo Gay! ) punishable by temporal.
He was convicted but the penalty is 6 years or less (for instance, there are mitigating
circumstances) and he wants to appeal to the CA. Is it a matter of right or a matter of
discretion?
A: My view is, it is a matter of discretion but even if these circumstances (recidivist,
etc.) still bail can be granted. That is the effect. Whereas, if the penalty is 6 years 1 day to
20 years and he is a recidivist, etc., bail shall not be granted. But if it is only 6 years or
less, it may be granted although it is not a matter of right.
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 liability 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;
(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)
Q: When bail shall be granted, how much is the amount of it?

A: There are guidelines under Section 9 marami eh! Of course one of the factors is
paragraph [c] penalty for the offense charged. Thats why the DOJ has a guidelines eh
na kapag ganito ang penalty, ganito a ng i-recommend mo. But that is only one of the
factors. The court can either follow the recommendation or raise it or lower it because
aside from that, marami pa eh like financial ability of the accused, character or reputation
of the accused, etc. And all these guidelines where taken from the ruling in the case of
VILLASEOR VS. ABANO (21 SCRA 312)
Q: What do you mean by corporate surety?
A: Section 10:
Lakas Atenista
103

Rule 114
Bail
SEC. 10. Corporate surety. Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed

as a surety in accordance with law and currently authorized to act as such, may
provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer of the
corporation duly authorized by its board of directors. (10a)
Q: What do you mean by a property bond?

A: Section 11:
SEC. 11. Property bond, how posted. A property bond is an undertaking
constituted as lien on the real property given as security for the amount of the
bail. Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bond, the accused shall
cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on file with the
Registry of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the
Registration Book on the space provided therefore, in the Registry of Deeds for
the province or city where the land lies, and on the corresponding tax
declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor
concerned.
Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his compliance
and his failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the
property bond and his re-arrest and detention. (11a)
SEC 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond. The qualifications of
sureties in a property bond shall be as follows:
(a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines;
(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least
the amount of undertaking;
(c) If there are two 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.
In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own
undertaking over and above all just debts, obligations and properties exempt
from execution. (12a)
SEC. 13. Justification of sureties. Every surety shall justify by
affidavit taken before the judge that he possesses the qualification prescribed
in the preceding section. He shall describe the property given as security,
stating the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and amount of
other bails entered into by him and still undischarged, and his other
liabilities. The court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning their
sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper. No bail shall be approved
unless the surety is qualified. (13a)
Q: What do you mean by cash deposit?

A: Section 14:
SEC. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. 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. Upon
submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing
compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be
discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and
applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be
returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. (14a)
RECOGNIZANCE
Lets go to the 4th type of bail recognizance which are not understood by many how
it operates.
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)
So, no money nothing is filed in court. On my word of honor, I will appear when the
court requires me to appear. If Im convicted, dont be afraid. I will not runaway. Court:
Word of honor ha? [promise ha] OK! Yan! Yan ang recognizance.
Or, instead of going to jail, Payag man ang mayor na doon na lang daw ako sa kanya.
Siya daw ang bahala sa akin. Court: OK. You will be in the custody of the mayor. Kung
Lakas Atenista
104

Rule 114
Bail
may problema, or anytime you are required to appear, you appear! And the mayor will
promise, Akong bahala dito. Hindi ito tatakbo [puputulan ko ng paa!] Sagot ko ito. Yan ang
recognizance word of you word or word of a responsible person.
Para bang character loan you borrow money, no collateral and I promise to pay you.
Creditor: Believe ako sa iyo. Your word is as good as a security. OK!
Q: Is recognizance possible in all criminal cases?
A: NO. Under the rules, recognizance is only allowed whenever allowed by law or these
Rules. So, if it is not allowed by law or the rules, hindi puwede.
Q: How do you define recognizance?
A: A recognizance is 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.
(People vs. Abner, 87 Phil. 566, 569)
The next question is, what are the instances where recognizance is allowed by the law
or this Rules? There are four (4) instances originated and as mentioned by the SC in the
1997 case of ESPIRITU VS. JOVELLANOS (280 SCRA 579). But even before JOVELLANOS
came out, the 1985 Rules says that recognizance is possible if allowed by law or the Rules.
Ano man yang by law or this Rules? So as early as 1985, I was already gathering the
instances when the law or the rules allow it. And I gathered four (4). Meron pa man
sigurong iba, pero di ko pa siguro nakita. That is why when the case of Jovellanos came
out, tiningnan ko exactly the very four! not more, not less. [ehem! ehem!]
Q: What are the instances when recognizance is allowed by the law or this Rules?
A: In the case of ESPIRITU VS. JOVELLANOS (280 SCRA 579):
1. Under RA 6036 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 R.A. No. 6036;
2. Rule 114, Section 16, last paragraph:
A person 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 circumstance,
shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the
discretion of the court.
3. Rule 114, Section 24:

No bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction has become
final. If before such finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be
allowed temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the
accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no
case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve
sentence.
4. Under PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Act) 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. No. 603, as amended.
Those are the four instances where recognizance is allowed. So it is not possible in all
cases.
This reminds of a former student of this law school who graduated way back in 1977.
He is from Agusan. I remember during the mid-80s, I went to Cagayan. Wala pa itong
Buda, so I have to travel via Butuan. On my way back at around 4 P.M., we were riding in a
private vehicle, we stopped at a town in Agusan. We took a break kay kapoy eh. There
Lakas Atenista
105

Rule 114
Bail
were numerous big houses there. And then I saw this attorney so and so and I recognized
him because he was a graduate of this school. Anyway Im not in a hurry, I went there. So I
met this lawyer and I gave my name. ATTY: Uy! You! We did not see each other for a long
time. Kumusta? [videoke ta!] DEAN: I was just passing by. What are you doing now? [na kay
fundador diha?] ATTY: Im practicing law. Karamihan criminal. And I noticed marami siyang
helpers sa bahay niya. So I asked him, Bat karami mo namang houseboys? ATTY: They
are not houseboys, Sir. They are all accused! DEAN: Why are they with you? ATTY:
Recognizance. DEAN: Ano pala mga crimes nila? ATTY: Murder, Homicide. Na-shock
ako!! Paano nakakuha ng recognizance ito eh hindi man puwede yan because
recognizance is only possible if allowed by law or the rules. Pero nobody is complaining
naman there.
SEC. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. No bail
shall be required when the law or these Rules so provide.
When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the
possible maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offense charged, he shall be
released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the
proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment.
A person 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 circumstance, shall be released on a
reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. (16a)
Lets go further. 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:
Q: 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 yung mga 6 months or less under the conditions mentioned
therein;
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 9 [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. (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with
the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the
judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge,
municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city or
municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality
other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any regional
trial court of said place, of if no judge thereof is available, with any
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial
judge therein.
(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks
to be released on recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court
where the case is pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or
appeal.
Lakas Atenista
106

Rule 114
Bail
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. (17a).
Section 17 is another important provision on where to file the bail. Normally, you file
the bail before the same court where you case is pending. But if the judge is not around,
under paragraph [a], puwede man any RTC judge, MTC judge, etc.
Q: Suppose your case is in Davao and you are arrested in Manila, can you post bail in
Manila?
A: YES because it would be very tedious if you will be arrested and brought back in
Davao just to post bail. And under paragraph [a], it may be filed with any RTC of such
place. And of course, the judge there will accept the bail and transmit everything to
Davao.
Q: What are the instances where the accused is only allowed to post bail before the
very same court where the case is pending?
A: 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. Tormon 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.
Q: Is the MTC entitled to entertain a petition for bail?
A: YES
Q: What are the instances when a MTC is entitled to entertain applications for bail?
A: The following are the instances:
1. Under paragraph [b], the application may be filed in the court where the case is
pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or appeal. With this
provision, it would seem puwede;
2. MTC can entertain petitions for bail in cases not cognizable by it filed before it for
purposes of preliminary investigation. That is why in one case the SC held that
inferior courts (MTC) can entertain applications for bail in capital offenses as an
incident to its power to conduct preliminary investigation. (Manigbas vs. Luna,
98 Phil. 466); and
3. 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? He is already in custody pero wala pa mang kaso? 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.
Lakas Atenista
107
Rule 114
Bail

Q: If you apply for bail with any court in the province, city
and number ng petition mo? You cannot put there People of
wala pa mang criminal case? What will be your reference?
A: IN RE: PETITION FOR BAIL. So bahala na kayo diyan.
how to docket it. Basta that is my right under the law! So you
or municipality, ano ang title

the Philippines versus kay
Bahala na ang clerk of court
think of your own caption.
SEC. 21. Forfeiture of bail. 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. If the accused fails to appear in
person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen given
thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show why no
judgment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within
the said period, the bondsmen must:
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his nonproduction; and
(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first
required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the
bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not
reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused
has been surrendered or is acquitted. (21a)
Another important provision is Section 21 how bail is forfeited.

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.
Dalawa yan (1) produce him within 30 days, and (2) explain why you failed to
produced him. If you satisfy both conditions, no problem the court will issue an order
lifting the order of the forfeiture.
Q: Suppose you failed to comply both or one of the conditions, what will happen?
A: The court will render judgement on the bond. Meaning, the bonding company is now
liable on its bond.
So ang una, order of confiscation or forfeiture of the bond. The second stage is, if the
conditions are not met, there will be judgment against the bond. So that is the step-bystep application of Section 21.
SEC. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. For the purpose of surrendering
the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on
a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police
officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion.
An 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. (23a)
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, lalo na yung corporate bond, is that the
sureties or bondmen becomes you jailer in the eyes of the law, and you are their prisoner.
They took over the government. In reality, they are not really imprisoning you. You are a
free man. And importante, you put up money for you release you pay premium, back up
your commitment with property. Parang insurance din ito eh.
Now halimbawa, nainis sila sa iyo? hindi ka nagabayad ng premium puwede ka man
nila arestuhin bah! The bondsmen can have you arrested without a warrant. So diretso ka
sa jail.
Lakas Atenista
108

Rule 114
Bail
Lets go to last paragraph of Section 23. If you are attempting to leave the Philippines,
lalo na kung may 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 you constitutional right to
travel:
Q: How do you reconcile Section 23 with the constitutional right to travel?
A: In the 1986 case of
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 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 reasons with the
court who has the complete jurisdiction over your person. But even if the court wants to
grand you permission to leave, gusto mong mag-tour, but sabi ng bondsmen, Ayoko
nga!, 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. Silverio: Is there
an issue of national security? Wala man! Public safety? Wala man! Public health?
Wala rin! Therefore, you cannot prevent me from travelling.
The SC here traced the history of that constitutional provision. How did that
provision came out?
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
Lakas Atenista
109

Rule 114
Bail
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. Yaan!
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. Nabasa ng Sandiganbayan
ang interview sa newspaper, Uy! Aalis! Alright, 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 p ending, 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. Report ng committee: she was sick but the evidence
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 dyiing.
With that, the Sandiganbayan, Ah hindi pala malala eh! So, wala! Motion
denied! 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. Marcos: Nobody is
questioning. Bakit ba itong Sandiganbayan will not take the words of my
doctors? Parang walang kumpiyansa!
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
Lakas Atenista
110

Rule 114
Bail
on the verification of the claim that petitioner was suffering from a medical
condition that was alleged to be serious and life threatening, the 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.
Meaning, even in law which is already your field of expertise, the court are even
allowed to seek the help of other lawyers, lalo na when it comes to the field of medicine.
And finally after one year, she ran for congresswoman in Leyte and she won. Of course
when you campaign, you have to undergo a terrible schedule of campaigns. Eh bakit
buhay ka pa? So in other words, you are not really in danger of dying. And she is very
much alive now.
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 hold-departure orders everytime Cojuangco travels
abroad considering that many things happened to Cojuangco?
HELD: We resolve in the negative. The travel band 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. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular
preliminary investigation. 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 therefore, 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. The court shall resolve the matter as early
as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case. (n)
Section 26 is a new provision.

Q: If you post bail, are you under estoppel to question the validity of the arrest or the
regularity or absence of a preliminary investigation?
Lakas Atenista
111

Rule 114
Bail
A: 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 those issue.
Lakas Atenista
112

Rule 114 - Inigo

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Rule 114 - Inigo

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Bail is the security given for the release of a

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Now, we go to these important issues on bail:

BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

This is a reversal of a ruling in the case of

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Alright. Let us go back to the basic:

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

WHEN BAIL IS DENIED

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Q: What happens now to those witnesses? Balik na naman sila sa trial?

AURILLO vs. FRANCISCO

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

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

PEOPLE vs. CALO

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

1. Before conviction by the MTC, MTC, or MCTC;

Q: When bail shall be granted, how much is the amount of it?

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

SEC. 10. Corporate surety. Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed

Q: What do you mean by a property bond?

Q: What do you mean by cash deposit?

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

3. Rule 114, Section 24:

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

or municipality, ano ang title

Another important provision is Section 21 how bail is forfeited.

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

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

application of an interested party. (because during the Marcos era, he created a

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Section 26 is a new provision.

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Você também pode gostar