1

CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash)

AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin | Vien

FELICIANO VS. PASICOLAN2 SCRA 888 (1961)

This is a petition for writ of

mandamus

to compel the respondent Judge to decide on the merits of a motion filed by the petitioner inwhich he
asks that the Court fix at P10,000.000 the amount of thebail for his liberty pending trial.

Here’s what happened:

Petitioner was charged with the crime of kidnapping. When hefound out that an Information had been
filed and that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him, he went into hiding. Hislawyer, at the
instance of his wife, fined a motion asking that the

Court fix the amount of the bond at P10K for the petitioner’s

release pending trial, but the Provincial Fiscal of Pampangaopposed the motion on the ground that the
filing was prematurebecause the petitioner had been arrested. The respondent Judgedismissed the
motion on the ground that

the petitioner doesnot have the right to ask for the court to admit him to bailpending his arrest or
surrender.

The petitioner contends that as, under the Constitution, "allpersons shall before conviction be bailable
by sufficient sureties,except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong,"
Article III, Section 1, paragraph (16), Constitution of the Philippines, and that the words "all persons"
used in saidconstitutional provision have been interpreted to mean "allpersons, without distinction,
whether formally charged or not yet so charged with any criminal offense".ISSUE: WON the judge erred
in not granting the petition foradmission to bail.HELD/RATIO: No.There is no question as to the
soundness of the rule invoked bypetitioner. Such is the law in this jurisdiction. But, the rule issubject to
the limitation that the person applying for admission tobail should be in the custody of the law, or
otherwise deprived of his liberty.In the case of

Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira

, 75 Phil. 634, this Court held:xxx According to this provision, the general rule is that any person, before
being convicted of any criminaloffense, shall be bailable, except when he is chargedwith a capital
offense and the evidence of his guilt isstrong.

Of course, only those persons who have beeneither arrested, detained or otherwise deprived of their
liberty will ever have occasion to seek thebenefits of said provision.
But in order that a personcan invoke the constitutional precept,

it is not necessary that he should wait until a formalcomplaint or information is filed against him

Fromthe moment he is placed under arrest, detention orrestraint by the officers of the law, he can claim
thisguarantee of the Bill of Rights, and this right heretains unless and until he is charged with a
capitaloffense and evidence of his guilt is strong.

And in the case of

Manigbas vs. Luna

, 52 O.G. 1405, it was held:xxx the right to bail only accrues when a person isarrested or deprived of his
liberty.

The purpose of bailis to secure one's release and it would beincongruous to grant bail to one who is
free.

Thus,`bail is the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the
law.'Without surrendering himself, he filed the motion in which heasks that the court fix the amount of
the bail bond for his releasepending trial. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is a freeman and is
under the jurisprudence not entitled to admission tobail