Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
161
Bail
ANNOTATION
BAIL
By
*
ROGELIO E. SUBONG
______________
I. Introduction, p. 162
II. Brief History and Definitions, p. 163
a) A Brief History, p. 163
b) Definitions, p. 164
III. Rationale and Horns of a Dilemma, p. 165
a) Rationale, p. 165
b) Horns of a Dilemma, p. 167
IV. Laws and Related Issuances on Bail, p. 168
V. Some of the Cases on Application for Bail
Decided by the Supreme Court, p. 169
a) Insular Govt. vs. Punzalan of 1907 to People vs.
Follantes, et al. of 1936, p. 169
b) Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira of 1945 to People vs.
Hernandez of 1956, p. 171
c) Feliciano vs. Pasicolan of 1961 to People vs. San
Diego of 1968, p. 174
d) People vs. Bocar of 1969 to Bernardo vs. Mendoza of
1979, p. 177
e) People vs. Sola of 1981 to People vs. Calo of 1990, p.
181
162
I. Introduction
Bail may seem to be an innocuous matter but to those who
are under criminal prosecution, especially for capital
offenses, it is of crucial immediacy, since their liberty,
albeit temporary, depends upon it entirely. To the offended
parties and their families bail is also of grave concern for
they would rather that the offender or accused were not
granted bail or incarcerated and remained so during the
pendency of the case and after conviction. To those
connected with the administration of criminal justice, like
the police and the public prosecutors, bail is also of
particular concern for any mishandling of their duties in
this regard would subject them to possible sanctions. To
the trial judges, bail is of paramount importance in their
judicial functions because failure to strictly follow the
163
Bail
164
165
Bail
as a noun: The surety or sureties who procure the release of a
person under arrest, by becoming responsible for his appearance
at the time and place designated. Those persons who become
sureties for the appearance of the defendant in court. (p. 73,
Abridged 5th Edition)
166
167
Bail
168
169
Bail
170
171
Bail
172
173
Bail
174
175
Bail
176
177
Bail
178
179
Bail
inquiry for bail hearings: the court does not sit to try the
merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight
that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against
accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or
on what further evidence may be therein offered and
admitted. (8 C.J.S. 93, 94).
Then in the case of Mendoza vs. CFI, 51 SCRA 369
(1973), the bail granted to the accused by the municipal
court was revoked by the Court of First Instance for which
he brought certiorari action before the High Court. But this
was unavailing. It found out that when bail was granted by
the municipal court, the accused was not even under
custody and what is worse, the prosecution was never
given a chance to present its evidence. The Supreme Court
also reiterated the settled jurisprudence on bail, e.g., that
writ of habeas corpus will not issue if detention is based on
valid warrant of arrest right to bail presupposes accused is
under legal custody and accused is entitled to bail except
in capital offenses wherein the evidence of guilt is strong
and that citing People vs. San Diego, supra, the prosecution
should be given a chance to be heard on the motion for
issuance of bail, otherwise, there would be violation of
procedural due process.
Hadhirl Tahil vs. Eisma, 64 SCRA 378 (1975) is an
administrative case against a judge who admitted in the
course thereof that he granted bail in a murder case to an
accused upon the request of a congressman, despite his
belief that the evidence of guilt against the accused was
strong. The High Court reiterated the usual principle that
the accused is entitled to bail before conviction except when
charged with capital offenses and the evidence of guilt is
strong. In this case, he was specifically charged in this
regard, the High Court also declared that the actuation of
the judge in granting bail, is indeed reprehensible.
In Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975) the High
Court addressed the question of whether the court can
impose strictly cash bond instead of surety bond for the
provisional
180
180
The High Court ruled that the trial court may not reject
otherwise acceptable sureties and insist on a cash bond.
After defining bail under the Rules of Court it affirmed
thatThe purpose of requiring bail is to relieve an
accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet
secure his appearance for trial. It then observed that to
require cash bond would entail hardship on the part of the
accused in securing the transfer of these assets in the
possession of the court as to have the effect of altogether
denying him his constitutional right to bail. Then it
reiterated settled jurisprudence:
In this jurisdiction, the accused as of right, is entitled to bail
prior to conviction except when he is charged with a capital
offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. This right is
guaranteed by the Constitution and may not be denied even
where the accused has previously escaped detention or by reason
of his prior absconding.
In order to safeguard the right of an accused to bail, the
Constitution further provides that excessive bail shall not be
required. This is logical because the imposition of an excessive
bail may negate the very right itself.
181
182
183
Bail
184
184
185
Bail
186
Then in People vs. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991) the High
Court addressed the following issues whether bail may be
denied to a person even as the offense charged is bailable
and whether the right to bail may be waived. These were
the issues in the case involving the rebellion charges filed
against Rafael Salas and company who were arrested in
1986. When the informations for rebellion were filed
against Salas and company, the penalty for said offense
was reclusion perpetua to death. But during pendency of
his motion for bail, the penalty was restored as originally
set forth under Art. 135 of the R.P.C. pursuant to
Executive Order No. 187. Thus Salas was granted bail. The
People appealed the ruling and was sustained by the High
Court. It ruled that rebellion is a bailable offense since the
penalty is now lower than reclusion perpetua and also
under the 1987 Constitution it is provided that the right to
bail subsists even with the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus. The High Court concluded that this provision
overturns the courts ruling in GarciaPadilla vs. Enrile, et
al., supra which held that when the writ of habeas corpus
is suspended the right to bail is also suspended. However,
the grant of bail was set aside since in the course of the
proceedings, Salas had made a categorical waiver of his
right to bail which is a right personal to the accused and
whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order,
public policy, mor
187
187
Bail
188
189
Bail
190
191
Bail
192
193
Bail
194
195
Bail
x x xx x xx x x
2. Section 13, Article III of the Constitution lays down the rule
that before conviction, all indictees shall be allowed bail, except
only those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong. In pursuance
thereof, Section 4, Rule 114, as amended, now provides that all
persons in custody shall, before conviction by a regional trial court
of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right. The right
to bail, which may be waived considering its personal nature and
which, to repeat, arises from the time one is placed in custody of
the law, springs from the presumption of innocence accorded
every accused upon whom should not be inflicted incarceration at
the outset since after trial would be entitled to acquittal, unless
his guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, the general rule is that prior to conviction by the
regional trial court of a criminal offense, an accused is entitled to
be released on bail as a matter of right, the present exceptions
thereto being the instance where the accused is charged with a
capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. Under the
general rule, upon proper application for admission to bail, the
court having custody of the accused should, as a matter of course,
196
197
Bail
612).
What is the significance of the Robin Padilla vs. CA
case? As far as jurisprudence is concerned, no new trail was
blazed by the High Court. All that can be said about this
case is that it has adhered strictly to law and settled
jurisprudence. Even the hope for deliverance in the case of
De La Rama vs. Peoples Court, supra, decided in 1946
proved to be unavailing. It will be noted that in that case,
the accused as per Medical Report was suffering from
minimal, early, unstable type of pulmonary tuberculosis,
and chronic granular pharyngities of which they (the
doctors) have seen many similar cases later progressing
into advanced stages when treatment and medicine are no
longer of any avail. The High Court saw no reason to apply
the holding in this postwar decision because appellants
situation is not akin to De la Ramas factual milieu.
VIII. Steps in the Filing of Petition for Issuance of
Bail
Securing bail after conviction of a capital offense has been
virtually foreclosed with the promulgation of Robin Padilla
198
198
199
Bail
200
Phil. 609)].
201
Bail
xxx
xxx
The accused has the right of crossexamination and to
introduce his own evidence of guilt in rebuttal to establish
his right to bail.
[Note: Under the new Rules of Criminal Procedure effective Oct. 1,
1988, Section 5, Rule 114, of the Rules of Court, it is clearly
provided that in application for admission to bail for capital
offenses, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence
of guilt is strong.]
202
203
Bail
204
xxx
xxx
xxx
In the petition of Senator Justiniano S. Montano for bail,
our illustrative case for this chapter, the Supreme Court
held (G.R. No. L6352, Res. of January 29, 1953, XVIII,
Lawyers
205
205
Bail
Journal, 103):
Exclusion from bail in capital offenses being an exception to the
otherwise absolute right guaranteed by the constitution, the
natural tendency of the courts has been toward a fair and liberal
appreciation, rather than otherwise, of the evidence in the
determination of the degree of proof and presumption of guilt
necessary to warrant a deprivation of right.
Besides, to deny bail, it is not enough that the evidence of guilt
is strong, it must also appear that in case of conviction the
defendants criminal liability would probably call for a capital
punishment. No clear or conclusive showing before the Court has
been made.
In the evaluation of the evidence, the probability of flight is one
rather important factor to be taken into account. The sole purpose
of confining accused in jail before conviction, it has been observed,
is to assure his presence at the trial. In other words, if denial of
bail is authorized in capital cases, it is only on the theory that the
proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the
opportunity, rather than face the verdict of the jury. Hence, the
exception to the fundamental right to be bailed should be applied
in direct ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion of
prosecution.
The possibility of escape in this case bearing in mind the
defendants official and social standing and his other personal
circumstances, seems remote, if not nil.
206
IX. Conclusion
Hoc quidem per quam durum est sed ita lex scripta est.
The law may be hard but so the law is written. Of course
the more familiar maxim is that: Dura est lex sed lexThe
law may be hard but that is the law. The constant laments
of Robin Padilla and those who sympathize with him are:
Why such penalty? Why no bail? After all, he did not
murder anyone much less did he commit a heinous crime?
But to those who understand the workings of our legal
system, they realize that the courts are merely following
the provisions of our statute books, the Constitution, the
Rules of Court and the holdings in a long line of consistent
decisions of the Supreme Court on bail applications.
Thus, others have faulted P.D. No. 1866, as one of the
remaining vestiges of the siege syndrome from the years of
dictatorship. The decree aimed to discourage or instill fear
among the populace from carrying unlicensed firearms to
nip in the bud, so to speak, any attempt at distabilization.
Now, there is a move in the Senate to amend such decree or
reduce the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to a
penalty lower than reclusion perpetua consistent with the
socalled restoration of democracy in the land. As any
legislation aimed to remedy a perceived evil, only time
will determine its wisdom.
o0o
207
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.