BAIL

Group 14:
ABROGUENA, Clarisse Jhil A.
YEPES, JR., Leonardo
ANDRES, Kristine
BASIC CONCEPTS:
Section 1. Bail defined. — 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.
IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT OR DISCRETION?

DEPENDS

Section 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 recognize 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)
• Section 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 convicting 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.

• 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.
• 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
accused, 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)
EX-PARTE (EX-ABUNDANTI
CAUTELA)
TO ALLOW ACCUSED TO POST BAIL
EX-ABUNDATI-CAUTELA
• LATIN TERM “AD CAUTELA(M)”
• Meaning: “for security”; as a “precaution”; or “to be on the safe side.”

• The phrase “ex abundanti-cautela” means with extreme caution

EX-ABUNDATI-CAUTELA
The Revised Rules of Court do not have a specific provision on ad cautelam.

Used by the lawyers:

1. To question a court’s jurisdiction and at the same time be able to file

pleadings, lawyers can caption their pleadings as “ad cautelam.” In court
hearings, lawyers must inform the judge that they are questioning the
court’s jurisdiction;
2. As a precautionary measure to preserve a party’s remedies.

Source: https://famli.blogspot.com/2011/12/ad-cautelam-
court-jurisdiction.html Atty. Gerry T. Galacio
EX-ABUNDATI-CAUTELA
• Lawyers should simply use the phrase “with express reservation on
jurisdiction.” (By the speaker on Civil Procedure, from Romulo
Mabanta, in an MCLE seminar sponsored by the Quezon City IBP)

Source: https://famli.blogspot.com/2011/12/ad-cautelam-
court-jurisdiction.html Atty. Gerry T. Galacio
FORM
NARCISO v. FLOR MARIE STA. ROMANA-CRUZ G.R. No. 134504 , March 17, 2000
FACTS:
After conducting a preliminary investigation on the death of Corazon Sta. Romana-Narciso, wife of Joselito Narciso, Asst. City
Prosecutor of Quezon City recommended and thereafter filed the information for parricide against Joselito Narciso on
November 13, 1991, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Joselito Narciso thereafter asked for a review of the
prosecutor's resolution before the Department of Justice (DOJ) which was however denied. Joselito Narciso moved for
reconsideration, which was still denied by the DOJ.
Failing before DOJ, the accused on February 6, 1992, filed an "Omnibus Motion for Reinvestigation and to Lift the Warrant of
Arrest". The Motion was granted and the case was set for reinvestigation by another prosecutor. Assistant Prosecutor Lydia A.
Navarro, to whom the case was assigned for reinvestigation, found no reason to disturb the findings of the previous
prosecutor and recommended the remand of the case to the court for arraignment and trial.
On August 3, 1992, accused filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte (Ex Abundanti Cautela) to Allow Accused Joselito Narciso to Post Bail".
The Public Prosecutor registered no objection and said motion was granted on the same day, allowing accused to post bail at
P150,000.00.
On August 14, 1992, the private prosecutor representing private complainant Flor Marie Sta. Romana-Cruz, a sister of
accused's deceased wife, filed an "Urgent Motion to Lift Order Allowing Accused To Post Bail". Not obtaining any resolution
on her "Motion To Lift Order Allowing Accused to Post Bail", private complainant filed this petition [before the CA].The Court
of Appeals granted private respondent's Petition for Certiorari. Hence, this recourse to us via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Order of the Regional Trial Court which granted bail to the petitioner is valid.

HELD: No. It is not valid.

Sec. 13, Article III of the Constitution, provides: "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. Excessive bail shall not be required."
Furthermore, Section 7, Article 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended, also provides: "No person charged with
a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution."
Although petitioner was charged with parricide which is punishable with reclusion perpetua, he argued before
the CA that he was entitled to bail because the evidence of his guilt was not strong. He contended that the
prosecutor's conformity to his Motion for Bail was tantamount to a finding that the prosecution evidence
against him was not strong.
Stressing in Basco v. Rapatalo that the judge had the duty to determine whether the evidence of guilt was
strong, the Court held:
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt
against the accused is strong. However, the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong,
being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge. "This discretion by the very nature of things, may
rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is
directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or
produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence
of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce his
own evidence in rebuttal."
Jurisprudence is replete with decisions compelling judges to conduct the required hearings in bail
applications, in which the accused stands charged with a capital offense. The absence of objection
from the prosecution is never a basis for the grant of bail in such cases, for the judge has no right to
presume that the prosecutor knows what he is doing on account of familiarity with the case. "Said
reasoning is tantamount to ceding to the prosecutor the duty of exercising judicial discretion to
determine whether the guilt of the accused is strong. Judicial discretion is the domain of the judge
before whom the petition for provisional liberty will be decided. The mandated duty to exercise
discretion has never been reposed upon the prosecutor.
The Court added: "The above-enumerated procedure should now leave no room for doubt as to the
duties of the trial judge in cases of bail applications. So basic and fundamental is it to conduct a
hearing in connection with the grant of bail in the proper cases that it would amount to judicial
apostasy for any member of the judiciary to disclaim knowledge or awareness thereof."
Additionally, the court's grant or refuse of bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the
prosecution, on the basis of which should be formulated the judge's own conclusion on whether
such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. The summary thereof is
considered an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its
absence will invalidate the grant or the denial of the application for bail.
Clearly, the grant of bail by was laced with grave abuse of discretion and the Court of Appeals was
correct in reversing him.
MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL
FORM
 PEOPLE vs. HON. CONRADO ANTONA
G.R. No. 137681, January 31, 2002

- information for murder against accused Dante Fajardo Sr., Paterno de

Castro, Filipina Fajardo Arce, and John Doe as principals and Pio Arce as
accomplice
- warrants of arrest were issued against all the accused without bail except
Pio Arce, whose bail was fixed at P200,000

- accused filed an urgent petition for bail with supplemental motion for
reduction of bail for Pio Arce

- trial court granted the accused’s petition for bail and fixed their bail at
P200,000 each. Decision is now being assailed in this case, as the petitions
for bail were granted without allowing the prosecution to present its
evidence.
Issue: Did the trial judge act with grave abuse of discretion in
granting bail to the accused without allowing the prosecution to
present its evidence.
Ruling:Petition was granted.

A hearing for bail, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of

the court, must actually be conducted to determine whether or not the
evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. At the hearing, the
prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is
strong.

The prosecution must be given ample opportunity to show that the

evidence of guilt is strong. By the very nature of deciding applications
for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that juridical discretion is
exercised in determining whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is
strong. Any order issued in the absence thereof is not a product of
sound judicial discretion but of whim and caprice and outright
arbitrariness.

Hence, in granting the petition for bail without giving the prosecution
adequate opportunity to adduce evidence, the trial court acted with
grave abuse of discretion.