February 24, 2016 (2nd recording)

New Rule in Waiver (February 2, 1987)

(Article III Sc. 12(1)) Waiver must be made in writing and made in the presence of counsel of choice
A confession to be admissible in evidence must satisfy four fundamental requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The confession must be voluntary

The confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel
The confession must be expressed
The confession must be in writing

People vs Mendoza and People vs Gonzales

Simply state that your rights under to custodial investigations have been waived.
In both cases, the confessions were inadmissible. But the defense counsel failed to object
on its admissibility during the presentation of evidence and during the trial. If you failed to
object to the inadmissibility of the evidence because it violates your rights under custodial
investigation, these rights can be waived.

THE RIGHT TO BAIL

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
Reclusion Perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
What is Bail?
Section 1 Rule 114 of Rules of Court. 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.

The burden of proving voluntariness of waivers is again on the prosecution.

People vs Bacor

There was confession, to the PAO attorney Anggot. This confession, the burden of proving
the voluntariness of the confession is on the prosecution.

WHAT CAN BE WAIVED?

-

The right to remain silent and to counsel (must be in writing and with the presence of
counsel), BUT NOT the rights to be given Miranda Warnings/Rights (The right to be
given Miranda Rights cannot be waived) the police is obliged, whether you listen or not.

Exclusionary Rule
People vs Andan

Rape case, the lady was a nursing student raped and killed by Andan. Rape and Homicide.
When he (Andan) was confronted with the concrete block which he used to hit the head of
the woman and he was shown this concrete block by the mayor, he voluntarily confessed
his guilt. Without anyone asking him for a confession. This was done in his spontaneous
manner, so this will not be covered.

Marcelo vs Sandiganbayan (read, in flagrante delicto)

Bail is basically the money or property that you give to the court, when you are facing a
certain case to ensure that you will be coming back to court, if or when required.
It is a security given, to be sure that you will come back for the hearing. Generally, Bail is a
matter of Right.
Forms of Bail. It could be Cash usually when there is a case filed before you and the
fiscal issues a resolution finding probable cause, sa pinaka last part ana there is a bail
recommended. Because there is now what we call bail bond guide, it is a manual/booklet
for prosecutors which gives the amounts of bail depending on the case filed.

Types or Forms of Bail

Ex. P80, 000, you can put it into cash, if you dont have cash you list a surety or insurance,
you go to accredited surety or insurance, the insurance will be the one to pay the P80,000
but you just paid at premium. Have to be renewed everywhere.

Property refers to REAL PROPERTY (title, assessed by clerk of court how much the property is)
You can go out through Recognizance is when your facing a case and you are released by a person
who is a prominate person in a society. He will be the one to take charge and say that during the
next hearing I will make sure that he will come to court. (for minor offenses)

Who decides what bail should you use. It is the ACCUSED choice.

The constitutional right to bail is:

available in criminal cases;

the right is not available to the military and;
Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance.

People vs Sandiganbayan

Erap and Jingoy, they were investigated by the ombudsman and later on they were tried
before the Sandiganbayan.
To be tried before the Sandiganbayan, you need to have a salary grade of P27,000 and
above and the crime must be committed in relation to your office.
Here, Jingoy was facing a plunder charge, so he wanted to have to bail, of course it was
opposed;
Now, if you are facing a capital offense, Look at Section 13 All persons, except those
charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong
you have case for it , dangerous drugs, you are found of 1kilo of shabu (like my client), can
he go out on bail?
You can file a motion for a bail hearing, and you have to show the court that evidence of
guilt is not strong. If evidence of guilt is NOT strong, you can be granted bail. If evidence
of guilt is strong, no bail.
Section 13 charged with offenses punishable with RP when evidence of guilt is strong. If
it is not strong, you can still avail your right to bail.
In this case, the court assessed that Jinggoy was not really a flight risk everytime he was
asked to go to court, and he was just elected senator, the court said it would be highly
improbable that he would forfeit his seat in Senate and move abroad and become a fugitive
of justice. So he was indeed granted bail, because of the social standing and the possibility
of escape of Jinggoy Estrada.

Now, the most important thing you have to remember when it comes to Section 13:
1.

When is bail a matter of right

It is a matter of right before or after conviction by MTC
It is a matter of right before conviction by RTC for offenses punishable by Reclusion
Temporal or less
It is a matter of right before conviction by RTC for death, life imprisonment or RP
when evidence of guilt is not strong.

2.

When is bail a matter of discretion

If after conviction for an offense punishable with 6years and 1day to 20years (PC to RT) if
any of the circumstances is not present.
What are those circumstances?
Those stated in Supreme Court Administrative Circular 12-94
1. That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent
2. That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement or evaded sentence
3. That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or
pardon.
4. That the circumstances of the accused indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail
5. That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused
may commit another crime.

3.

When is bail not allowed

After final judgement by any court (15 days have lapsed when there is no pending
appeal)
Before conviction by RTC for offenss punishable by RP, Life imprisonment, when
evidence is strong
After conviction for offenses punishable by RP, death, Life imprisonment when the
case is on appeal. (Qui vs People) convicted, appealed to CA, the court can deny
this right to bail because bail is not a matter of right when it is on appeal.

Valerio vs CA

Here, Milagros is accused of killing her husband. She was the mastermind, although she did
not actually kill her husband, because the man who actually killed him confessed but she
was the mastermind, therefore she was a principal by inducement.
She filed bail, but the court said NO, she is not allowed to go out on bail. The evidence of
guilt is strong, you are the mastermind, the person who confessed the killing confessed you
are the mastermind. Therefore you should not be granted bail.

Trillanes vs Pimentel

Mutiny, they were detained, evidence of guilt was strong, therefore they could not avail the
right to bail.

Qui vs People

Qui, was convicted with child abuse. She was convicted in the RTC, pending appeal, she
filed an application for bail, what did the court say?
You were already convicted, all the more we will not give you the right to bail, diba?
(already convicted)
If the right to bail is a right enshrined in the Art.III Section 13 of the Bill of Rights, the
court should exercise, according to its wordings, GRAVE CAUTION, because youre
already been convicted, of course you would be a flight risk already.

BAIL IN MILITARY COURTS

Comendador vs De Villa and Aswat vs Galido

In both cases, they were members of the military and they were subject to court martial
because they violated certain articles of war. The Supreme Court is clear, Bail is not
available to military courts.
Bail is not recognize in military courts.

Remember: Prosecution has the burden to prove that bail should be denied. In ordinary cases, if the
penalty is RP or higher the prosecution has the burden to prove that evidence of guilt is strong.

Now, if it is a matter of discretion, they have the burden to prove that the accused suffers
from conditions/disabilities katong recidivist, quasi-recidivist, possible flight risk if it is a matter of
discretion.

RIGHT TO BAIL AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD

If it is a matter of right, the burden of the prosecution is to prove or present evidence when
bail is a matter of right is not for the purpose of denying bail but for proving the amount of bail.

Manotok vs CA

Remember: the right to travel can be impaired if you are out on bail.

STANDARDS FOR FIXING BAIL

Villasenor vs Abano

In this case, he was facing a murder case and he was admitted to bail for P60,000. His
original bond was reduced to P40,000 but because he was not able to attend it was
cancelled. Of course, he filed a motion for recon to reinstate his bail bond.
They questioned the amount of bail, what is your criteria for fixing bail?
The court mentioned certain guidelines in fixing bail such as:
1. Ability of the accused to give bail
2. Nature of the offense
3. Penalty for the offense charged
4. Character and reputation of the accused
5. Health of the accused
6. Character and strength of the evidence
7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial
8. Forfeiture of bonds
9. Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
10. If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.
With regards to standards for fixing bail just look at the case of Villasenor vs Abano.

Santiago vs Vasquez

In this case, he was facing multiple cases of murder (14). He was given bail, but his amount
of bail was P1,195,200.00. What did the court say?
He was only charge basically with 2 offenses, the court said that the amount of P1,195,200
when evidence of guilt is not strong is excessive and too much.
The last sentence of Section 13 specifically states excessive bails shall not be required.

People vs Donato

Yap, Jr. vs CA

He was facing an estafa case for P5.5 million. His bail bond was also P5,5million. The
court said the amount of P5.5million was unreasonable, excessive and constitutes an
effective denial of petitioners right to bail.
You have the right to bail, but because the amount of bail is too much and you cannot
afford it it render nugatory your right in the first place.

Miriam, faced a graft and corruption case, when she allowed Indians to come in.
She wanted to study in Harvard, the court said, Op! your out on bail, we will not allow you
to leave for abroad.
The court said that since you are amenable to the conditions in the bail bond we can
prohibit your right to travel abroad.

WAIVER TO THE RIGHT OF BAIL

De La Camara vs Enage

The court said, the 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.
Why? If the accused is allowed to leave the Philippines, he may be placed beyond the reach
of the courts.

Donato was facing a rebellion charged. Before the republic act, when it was the penalty was
higher, the penalty for rebellion was Prision Mayor, 6years 1 day to 12years.
In this case, rebellion, prision mayor, 6years, bail is a matter of right.
What happened? Here, he was granted bail but the other side said, he has been evading in
the police for 13years, it was only now they were able to capture him, his addressed was
unknown, his using certain aliances, his been given a false address, and has a reward for his
arrest worth P250,000 we should not grant bail. What did the court say?
Since bail is a matter of right, and it is not a capital offense, despite all those things that you
said, he is allowed to go out on bail. Why? Because bail is a matter of right.
With regard to waiver of bail, in this case Salas (boyfriend) said, ako nalang. I will stay in
jail, have my companion be released. So they released her, after releasing her, Salas said I
will put up bail, anyway it is a matter of right
The court said, the right to bail is a personal right and since you waived it in exchange for
your companion being freed you do not have that right to bail anymore. Why? Because you
already waived such right.
The right to bail may be waived, precisely because it is a personal right.

February 24, 2016