Right to bail – Case Digests

1. Basco v. Rapatalo Held: Yes, when the grant of bail is discretionary,

the prosecution has the burden of showing that
Facts: In a sworn letter-complaint dated August the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
14, 1995, complainant Inocencio Basco charged However, the determination of whether or not
respondent Judge Leo M. Rapatalo of RTC, Branch the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter
32, Agoo, La Union with gross ignorance or willful of judicial discretion, remains with the judge.
disregard of established rule of law for granting "This discretion by the very nature of things, may
bail to an accused in a murder case (Criminal Case rightly be exercised only after the evidence is
No. 2927) without receiving evidence and submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the
conducting a hearing. discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence
and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if
Complainant, who is the father of the victim,
not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it
alleged that an information for murder was filed
is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial
against a certain Roger Morente, one of three
discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be
accused. The accused Morente filed a petition for
submitted to the court, the petitioner having the
bail. The hearing for said petition was set for May
right of cross-examination and to introduce his
31, 1995 by petitioner but was not heard since the
own evidence in rebuttal." To be sure, the
respondent Judge was then on leave. It was reset
discretion of the trial court, "is not absolute nor
to June 8, 1995 but on said date, respondent Judge
beyond control. It must be sound, and exercised
reset it to June 22, 1995. The hearing for June 22,
within reasonable bounds. Judicial discretion, by
1995, however, did not materialize. Instead, the
its very nature involves the exercise of the judge's
accused was arraigned and trial was set. Again, the
individual opinion and the law has wisely
petition for bail was not heard on said date as the
provided that its exercise is guided by well-known
prosecution's witnesses in connection with said
rules which, while allowing the judge's rational
petition were not notified. Another attempt was
latitude for the operation of his own individual
made to reset the hearing to July 17, 1995.
views, prevent them from getting out of control.
In the meantime, complainant allegedly saw the An uncontrolled or uncontrollable discretion on
accused in Rosario, La Union on July 3, 1995. He the part of a judge is a misnomer
later learned that the accused was out on bail
In the application for bail of a person charged with
despite the fact that the petition had not been
a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion
heard at all. Upon investigation, complainant
perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing,
discovered that bail had been granted and a
whether summary or otherwise in the
release order dated June 29, 1995 1 was issued on
discretion of the court, must actually be
the basis of a marginal note 2 dated June 22, 1995,
conducted to determine whether or not the
at the bottom of the bail petition by Assistant
evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
Prosecutor Manuel Oliva which stated: "No
Since the determination of whether or not the
objection: P80,000.00," signed and approved by
evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a
the assistant prosecutor and eventually by
matter of judicial discretion, the judge is
respondent Judge. Note that there was already a
mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases
release order dated June 29, 1995 on the basis of
where the prosecution chooses to just file a
the marginal note of the Assistant Prosecutor
comment or leave the application for bail to
dated June 22, 1995 (when the hearing of the
the discretion of the court. Corollarily, another
petition for bail was aborted and instead
reason why hearing of a petition for bail is
arraignment took place) when another hearing
required is for the court to take into consideration
was scheduled for July 17, 1995.
the guidelines set forth in Section 6, Rule 114 of
Issue: WON the judge committed an error in the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. This
granting the bail of the accused. Court, in a number of cases held that even if the

1
Right to bail – Case Digests
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. After hearing, the court's order
granting or refusing bail must contain a summary
of the evidence for the prosecution. On the basis
thereof, the judge should then formulate his own
conclusion, as to whether the evidence so
presented is strong enough as to indicate the guilt
of the accused. Otherwise, the order granting or
denying the application for bail may be
invalidated because the summary of evidence for
the prosecution which contains the judge's
evaluation of the evidence may be considered as
an aspect of procedural due process for both the
prosecution and the defense.
While it may be true that the respondent judge set
the application for bail for hearing three times,
thus showing lack of malice or bad faith in
granting bail to the accused, nonetheless, this does
not completely exculpate him because the fact
remains that a hearing has not actually been
conducted in violation of his duty to determine
whether or not the evidence against the accused is
strong for purposes of bail. Normally, the Court
imposes a penalty of P20,000.00 fine in cases
where the judge grants the application for bail
without notice and hearing. In view however of
the circumstances of this case, a reprimand
instead of the P20,000.00 would suffice.
2. People v. Donato
Salas aka NPA’s “Ka Bilog” was arrested and was
charged for rebellion. He was charged together
with the spouses Concepcion. Salas, together with
his co-accused later filed a petition for the WoHC.
A conference was held thereafter to hear each
party’s side. It was later agreed upon by both
parties that Salas will withdraw his petition for
the WoHC and that he will remain in custody for
the continued investigation of the case and that he
will face trial. The SC then, basing on the
stipulations of the parties, held to dismiss the
habeas corpus case filed by Salas. But later on,
Salas filed to be admitted for bail and Judge
Donato approved his application for bail. Judge
Donato did not bother hearing the side of the
prosecution. The prosecution argued that Salas is
estopped from filing bail because he has waived
his right to bail when he withdrew his petition or
habeas corpus as a sign of agreement that he will
be held in custody.
ISSUE: Whether or not Salas can still validly file
for bail.
HELD: The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right
to bail when he withdrew his petition for the
issuance of the WoHC. The contention of the
defense that Salas merely agreed to be in custody
and that the same does not constitute a waiver of
his right to bail is not tenable. His waiver to such
right is justified by his act of withdrawing his
petition for WoHC.
Other notes:
THE RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE WAIVED. We hereby
rule that the 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.
Even the 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes a
waiver of rights guaranteed by its Bill of Rights.
Section 12(1) of Article III thereof on the right to
remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his own choice
states:
". . . These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel."
This provision merely particularizes the form and
manner of the waiver; it, nevertheless, clearly
suggests that the other rights may be waived in
some other form or manner provided such waiver
will not offend Article 6 of the Civil Code.
2
Right to bail – Case Digests
3. People v. Fortes
Facts: Agripino Gine of Barangay Naburacan,
Municipality of Matnog, Province of Sorsogon,
accompanied his 13-year old daughter, Merelyn,
to the police station of the said municipality to
report a rape committed against the latter by the
accused. Following this, the accused was
apprehended and charged. A bond of P25000 was
granted for accused’s provisional release. The
MCTC found him guilty. An appeal to RTC was
filed, the request for the fixing of bond was denied.
Now accused assails denial of bail on the ground
that the same amounted to an undue denial of his
constitutional right to bail.
Issue: Whether or Not the accused’s right to bail
violated.
Held: No. It is clear from Section 13, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution and Section 3, Rule 114 of
the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, that
before conviction bail is either a matter of right or
of discretion. It is a matter of right when the
offense charged is punishable by any penalty
lower than reclusion perpetua. To that extent the
right is absolute. If the offense charged is
punishable by reclusion perpetua 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. If an accused who is charged with
a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is
convicted by the trial court and sentenced to
suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of
right on the part of the accused nor of discretion
on the part of the court.
4. Commendador v. De Villa
Facts: This is a consolidated case of members of
the AFP who were charged with violation of
Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96
(Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a
Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in
relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
(Murder). The petitioners were questioning the
conduct of the pre-trial investigation conducted
where a motion to bail was filed but was denied.
Petitioner applied for provisional liberty and
preliminary injunction before the court which was
granted. However De Villa refused to release
petitioner for provisional liberty pending the
resolution of the appeal they have taken before
the court invoking that military officers are an
exemption from the right to bail guaranteed by the
Constitution. Decision was rendered reiterating
the release for provisional liberty of petitioners
with the court stating that there is a mistake in the
presumption of respondents that bail does not
apply among military men facing court martial
proceeding. Respondents now appeal before the
higher court.
Issue: Whether or not military men are exempted
from the Constitutional guarantee on the right to
bail.
Held: The SC ruled that the bail invoked by
petitioners is not available in the military as an
exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill
of Rights. Thus the right to a speedy trial is given
more emphasis in the military where the right to
bail does not exist. Justification to this rule
involves the unique structure of the military and
national security considerations which may result
to damaging precedents that mutinous soldiers
will be released on provisional liberty giving them
the chance to continue their plot in overthrowing
the government. Therefore the decision of the
lower court granting bail to the petitioners was
reversed.
The justification for this exception was well
explained by the Solicitor General as follows:
The unique structure of the military should be enough
reason to exempt military men from the constitutional
coverage on the right to bail.
Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that
mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of
democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary use of
firearms by the government for the discharge of their
duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues
collected from the people. All other insurgent elements
3
Right to bail – Case Digests
carry out their activities outside of and against the
existing political system.
National security considerations should also impress
upon this Honorable Court that release on bail of
respondents constitutes a damaging precedent. Imagine a
scenario of say 1,000 putschists roaming the streets of the
Metropolis on bail, or if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order
were sustained, on 'provisional" bail. The sheer number
alone is already discomforting. But, the truly disquieting
thought is that they could freely resume their heinous
activity which could very well result in the overthrow of
duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable
Court, and replace the same with a system consonant
with their own concept of government and justice.
The argument that denial from the military of the
right to bail would violate the equal protection
clause is not acceptable. This guaranty requires
equal treatment only of persons or things
similarly situated and do not apply where the
subject of the treatment is substantially different
from others. The accused officers can complain if
they are denied bail and other members of the
military are not. But they cannot say they have
been discriminated against because they are not
allowed the same right that is extended to
civilians.
5. Baylon v. Judge Sison
“application for bail on offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua/life imprisonment requires a
hearing to give prosecution the chance to present
evidence on the guilt of the accused”
Facts: Respondent judge is accused for
malfeasance in granting bail to the accused
charged with double murder. Prosecution was not
given notice of at least 3 days before the
scheduled hearing for bail in violation of Rule 15,
section 4 of the Rules of Court and the filing of
petition for bail has only 2 non-working day
interval from the schedule of the hearing.
Moreover the prosecution also assails that they
were not given the chance to present evidence
that strongly prove the guilt of the accused.
Respondent judge justifies not having committed
grave abuse of discretion since the prosecution
did not interpose objection with his orders and
the lack of previous notice was cured with the
filing of motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge
exercised abuse in discretion in the grant of bail to
the accused.
Held: The Supreme Court held that there was
abuse in the discretion of the judge in granting
bail to the accused considering that the motion for
bail was filed on a Saturday and the hearing was
immediately conducted on Monday thereby
depriving the prosecution to make an opposition
thereto and violating the 3-day notice rule
embodied in Rule 15, Sec. 4 of Rules of Court. It is
a well-established rule of law that bail is not a
matter of right and requires a hearing where the
accused is charged with an offense which is
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. Respondent judge should have
carefully scrutinized the validity of petition for
bail before making an outright grant of this
motion.
There are two main arguments invoked and relied
on by respondent judge to support and justify his
grant of bail to the accused, namely, that time was
of the essence, considering that the accused had
been detained since October 21, 1991; and that
the prosecution failed to interpose an objection to
the granting of bail and to ask for an opportunity
to prove the strength of the evidence of guilt
against the accused.
We reject the first tenuous proposition that time
was of the essence, since the ambient
circumstances obtaining prior to the grant of bail
could not but have cautioned respondent judge to
be more circumspect in entertaining and resolving
the petition therefor. First, the accused were
charged with double murder, each of which is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, hence
bail is not a matter of right. Second, no bail was
recommended in the information which was filed
on the bases of the sworn statements of several
eyewitnesses to the incident, thus constituting
4
Right to bail – Case Digests
clear and strong evidence of the guilt of all the
accused. Third, at the time of the application for
bail, there was still pending a reinvestigation of
the case being conducted by the Office of the City
Prosecutor. It must be noted that the
reinvestigation was at the instance of the accused
themselves, hence any resultant delay caused by
the conduct thereof is naturally and logically
attributable to them. And, finally, the guileful
setting of the hearing of the petition for bail on
December 23, 1991, when the same was filed only
on December 21, 1991 which was a Saturday,
readily casts doubt on the good faith in and the
regularity of the procedure adopted by the
defense.
A guided legal principle in the right to bail
includes:
. . The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity
to present evidence because by the very nature of
deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such
evidence that judicial discretion is weighed against in
determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In
other words, discretion must be exercised regularly,
legally and within the confines of procedural due process,
that is, after evaluation of the evidence submitted by the
prosecution. Any order issued in the absence thereof is
not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim
and caprice and outright arbitrariness.
It is accordingly settled that an order granting or
refusing bail must contain a summary of the
evidence offered by the prosecution. On the basis
thereof, the judge should then formulate his own
conclusion as to whether the evidence so
presented is strong enough as to indicate the guilt
of the accused. In fact, such a summary with his
evaluation of the evidence may be considered as
an aspect of procedural due process for both the
prosecution and the defense.
The importance of a hearing has been emphasized
in not a few cases wherein this Court has ruled
that even if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the
motion for bail, it is still mandatory for the court
to conduct a hearing or ask searching and
clarificatory questions from which it may infer the
strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it,
against the accused.
Finally, in the most recent case of Tucay vs.
Domagas it was categorically stressed that
although the provincial prosecutor had interposed
no objection to the grant of bail to the accused, the
respondent judge therein 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. Additionally, it must be borne in
mind that a hearing is also necessary for the court
to take into consideration the guidelines set forth
in Section 6, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in
fixing the amount of bail. Only after respondent
judge has satisfied himself that these
requirements have been met can he then proceed
to rule on whether or not to grant bail.
6. Manotoc v. CA
FACTS: Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was one of the two
principal stockholders of Trans-Insular
Management Inc. and the Manotoc Securities Inc.
(stock brokerage house). He was in US for a
certain time, went home to file a petition with SEC
for appointment of a management committee for
both businesses. Such was granted. However,
pending disposition of a case filed with SEC, the
latter requested the Commissioner of Immigration
not to clear him for departure. Consequently, a
memorandum to this effect was issued.
There was a torrens title submitted to and
accepted by Manotoc Securities Inc which was
suspected to be fake. 6 of its clients filed separate
criminal complaints against the petitioner and
Leveriza, President and VP respectively. He was
charged with estafa and was allowed by the Court
to post bail.
Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for
permission to leave the country stating his desire
to go to US relative to his business transactions
and opportunities. Such was opposed by the
5
Right to bail – Case Digests
prosecution and was also denied by the judges.
He filed petition for certiorari with CA seeking to
annul the prior orders and the SEC
communication request denying his leave to travel
abroad.
According to the petitioner, having been admitted
to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts that
granted him bail nor SEC, which has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him
from exercising his constitutional right to travel.
ISSUE : WON the Court Acted with grave abuse of
discretion
HELD : No. 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. Rule 114,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the
security required and given for the release of a
person who is in the custody of the law, that he
will appear before any court in which his
appearance may be required as stipulated in the
bail bond or recognizance. 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. If the accused were allowed to leave the
Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be
placed beyond the reach of the courts. As
petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and
the appellate court of the urgency of his travel, the
duration thereof, as well as the consent of his
surety to the proposed travel, We find no abuse of
judicial discretion in their having denied
petitioner's motion for permission to leave the
country, in much the same way, albeit with
contrary results, that We found no reversible
error to have been committed by the appellate
court in allowing Shepherd to leave the country
after it had satisfied itself that she would comply
with the conditions of her bail bond.
7. Govt of the US v. Purganan
Facts: This Petition is really a sequel to GR No.
139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C.
Lantion where the court held that Jimenez was
bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the extradition process.
Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of
the United States of America, represented by the
Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May
2001, the appropriate Petition for Extradition
which was docketed as Extradition Case
01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that
Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant
issued by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on 15 April 1999.
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez
filed before it an “Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte
Motion,” which prayed that Jimenez’s application
for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its 23
May 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of
Jimenez and set the case for hearing on 5 June
2001. In that hearing, Jimenez manifested its
reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial
court allowing the accused in an extradition case
to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of
arrest.
After the hearing, the court a quo required the
parties to submit their respective memoranda. In
his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative
prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be
allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000.
The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for
hearing on 15 June 2001. Thereafter, the court
below issued its 3 July 2001 Order, directing the
issuance of warrant for his arrest and fixing bail
for his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash.
After he had surrendered his passport and posted
the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted
provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated
4 July 2001. Hence, this petition.
Issues:
1.Whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and
hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be
issued
6
Right to bail – Case Digests
2. Whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional
liberty while the extradition proceedings are
pending
Held: 1. No, to determine probable cause for the
issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself
requires only the examination — under oath or
affirmation — of complainants and the witnesses
they may produce. There is no requirement to
notify and hear the accused before the issuance of
warrants of arrest.
At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence
on record, judges merely further examine
complainants and their witnesses. In the present
case, validating the act of respondent judge and
instituting the practice of hearing the accused and
his witnesses at this early stage would be
discordant with the rationale for the entire
system. If the accused were allowed to be heard
and necessarily to present evidence during the
prima facie determination for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, what would stop him from
presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this
stage — if he so desires — in his effort to negate a
prima facie finding? Such a procedure could
convert the determination of a prima facie case
into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings
and possibly make trial of the main case
superfluous. This scenario is also anathema to the
summary nature of extraditions.
***Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and
its supporting documents, the judge must study
them and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie
finding whether (a) they are sufficient in form and
substance, (b) they show compliance with the
Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c) the person
sought is extraditable. At his discretion, the judge
may require the submission of further
documentation or may personally examine the
affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite
of this study and examination, no prima facie
finding is possible, the petition may be dismissed
at the discretion of the judge.
On the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie
case is determined, then the magistrate must
immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the
extraditee, who is at the same time summoned to
answer the petition and to appear at scheduled
summary hearings. Prior to the issuance of the
warrant, the judge must not inform or notify the
potential extraditee of the pendency of the
petition, lest the latter be given the opportunity to
escape and frustrate the proceedings. In our
opinion, the foregoing procedure will “best serve
the ends of justice” in extradition cases.***
2. No. Extradition cases are different from
ordinary criminal proceedings. The constitutional
right to bail “flows from the presumption of
innocence in favor of every accused who should
not be subjected to the loss of freedom as
thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless
his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” It
follows that the constitutional provision on bail
will not apply to a case like extradition, where the
presumption of innocence is not at issue.
Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case
Parettiin arguing that, constitutionally, “[n]o one
shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due
process of law.”
Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to
the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does
not amount to a violation of his right to due
process. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the
essence of due process is the opportunity to be
heard but, at the same time, point out that the
doctrine does not always call for a prior
opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances
— such as those present in an extradition case —
call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is
enough. In the present case, respondent will be
given full opportunity to be heard subsequently,
when the extradition court hears the Petition for
Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his
right to due process and fundamental fairness.
7
Right to bail – Case Digests
8. Govt. of Hongkong v. Olalia
Note: This case reversed the doctrine in
purganan case.
Facts: Respondent Muñoz was charged of 3 counts
of offences of “accepting an advantage as agent”,
and 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud, punishable
by the common law of Hongkong. The Hongkong
Depoartment of Justice requested DOJ for the
provisional arrest of respondent Muñoz; the DOJ
forward the request to the NBI then to RTC. On the
same day, NBI agents arrested him.
Respondent filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for preliminary mandatory injunction
and writ of habeas corpus questioning the validity
of the order of arrest.
The CA declared the arrest void. Hence this
petition by the Hongkong Department of Justice
thru DOJ.
DOJ filed a petition for certiorari in this Court and
sustained the validity of the arrest.
Hongkong Administrative Region then filed in the
RTC petition for extradition and arrest of
respondent. Meanwhile, respondent filed a
petition for bail, which was opposed by the
petitioner, initially the RTC denied the petition
holding that there is no Philippine Law granting
bail in extradition cases and that private
responded is a “flight risk”.
Motion for reconsideration was filed by the
respondent, which was granted. Hence this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not right to bail can be avail in
extradition cases.
HELD:
In Purganan case, the right to bail was not
included in the extradition cases, since it is
available only in criminal proceedings.
However the Supreme Court, recognized the
following trends in International Law.
1. The growing importance of the individual
person in publican international law who, in the
20th century attained global recognition.
2. The higher value now being given in human
rights in international sphere
3. The corresponding duty of countries to
observe these human rights in fulfilling their
treaty obligations
4. The of duty of this court to balance the rights
of the individual under our fundamental law, on
one hand, and the law on extradition on the other.
The modern trend in the public international law
is the primacy placed on the sanctity of human
rights.
Enshrined the Constitution “The state values the
dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights.” The Philippines
therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and
promoting the right of every person to liberty and
due process, ensuring that those detained or
arrested can participate in the proceeding before
the court, to enable it to decide without delay on
the legality of the detention and order their
release if justified.
Examinations of this Court in the doctrines
provided for in the US Vs Purganan provide the
following:
1. The exercise of the State’s police power to
deprive a person of his liberty is not limited to
criminal proceedings.
2. To limit the right to bail in the criminal
proceeding would be to close our eyes to
jurisprudential history. Philippines has not limited
the exercise of the right to bail to criminal
proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail
persons who are not involved in criminal
proceedings. In fact, bail has been involved in this
jurisdiction to persons in detention during the
tendency of administrative proceedings, taking
into cognizance the obligation of the Philippines
under international conventions to uphold human
rights.
8
Right to bail – Case Digests

EXTRADITION, is defined as the removal of an

accused from the Philippines with the object of
placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities
to enable the requesting state or government to
hold him in connection with criminal investigation
directed against him or execution of a penalty
imposed on him under the penal and criminal law
of the requesting state or government. Thus
characterized as the right of the a foreign power,
created by treaty to demand the surrender of one
accused or convicted of a crimes within its
territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative
obligation of the other state to surrender him to
the demanding state.

The extradited may be subject to detention as may

be necessary step in the process of extradition,
but the length of time in the detention should
be reasonable.

In the case at bar, the record show that the

respondent, Muñoz has been detained for 2
years without being convicted in Hongkong.

The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring the

individual his right to liberty and due process and
should not therefor deprive the extraditee of his
right to bail PROVIDED that certain standards
for the grant is satisfactorily met. In other
words there should be “CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE”.

However in the case at bar, the respondent was

not able to show and clear and convincing
evidence that he be entitled to bail. Thus the case
is remanded in the court for the determination
and otherwise, should order the cancellation
of his bond and his immediate detention.