The Right To Bail Notes

The Right to Bail
Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded as follows:
Art. III, Sec. 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. Excessive bail shall not be required."
1. Tabao v. Barataman (AM No. MTJ-01-1384, 2002)
Section 1 of R.A. No. 6036 provides that "any provision of law to the
contrary notwithstanding, bail shall not be required of a person
charged with violation of a criminal offense the prescribed penalty for
which is not higher than six months imprisonment and/or a fine of
two thousand pesos, or both."
Instead of bail, Section 2 states that the person charged "shall be

required to sign in the presence of two witnesses of good standing in
the community a sworn statement binding himself, pending final
decision of his case, to report to the Clerk of Court hearing his case
periodically every two weeks. The Court may, in its discretion and
with the consent of the person charged, require further that he be
placed under the custody and subject to the authority of a responsible
citizen in the community who may be willing to accept the
responsibility. In such a case the affidavit herein mentioned shall
include a statement of the person charged that he binds himself to
accept the authority of the citizen so appointed by the Court."
R.A. No. 6036 allows the release of the accused on his own
recognizance only where it has been established that he is unable to
post the required cash or bail bond.
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of

the law.It is a basic principle that bail is intended to obtain
provisional liberty and cannot be granted before custody of an
accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities by his arrest or
voluntary surrender. It is self-evident that a court cannot grant
provisional liberty to one who is actually in the enjoyment of his
liberty for it would be incongruous to give freedom to one who is free.
Thus, we have held that it is premature to file a motion for bail for
someone whose liberty has yet to be curtailed.
2. Sy Guan v. Amparo (GR No. L-1771, 1974)
Bail before conviction is a constitutional right of an accused, except in

prosecutions for capital offenses where the proof of guilt is strong.
(Article III, section 1, paragraph 16, Philippine Constitution.) Other
than this, the Constitution makes no exceptions. The existence of
high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond confers
upon the court no greater discretion than to intend to assure the
presence of the defendant when it is wanted, such amount to be
subject, of course, to the other provision of the same section and
paragraph cited, that excessive bail shall not be required."
3. Gov. of USA v. Purganan (GR No. 148571, 2002)
The constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4

of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has
been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It
does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition
courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Moreover, 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
4. Cortes v. J. Catral (AM No. RTJ-97-1387, 1997)
Bail is the security required by the court and given by the accused to
ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at the
scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought against him
or her. It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of
innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to
enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to
punishment prior to conviction.
Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case. The

amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the
accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with the
constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive. Therefore,
whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of
hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he
must be asked for his recommendation because in fixing the amount
of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number of factors
such as the applicants character and reputation, forfeiture of other
bonds or whether he isa fugitive from justice.
Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states: No person

charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of
guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of
the criminal action. Consequently, when the accused is charged with
an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, not only to take
into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court, but primarily to determine the existence of strong
evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused.
We reiterate the following duties of the trial judge in case an

application for bail is filed:
1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the

prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit
his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as
amended);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application

for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of
enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary
of evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
approval of the bail bond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be
denied.
5. People v. San Diego (GR No. L-29676, 1968)
We are of the considered opinion that whether the motion for bail of a
defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a
summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the
prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a
reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before
the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal case
involved in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should be
denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural
due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be
considered void on that ground.
The court's discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be

exercised in the light of a summary of the evidence presented by the
prosecution; otherwise, it would be uncontrolled and might be
capricious or whimsical.
6. Gov. of Hong Kong v. Olalia (GR No. 153675, 2007)
But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized

by the following:
(a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee

and
(b) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also "the
machinery of criminal law."
This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine

Extradition Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and
temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best serve the
interest of justice." We further note that Section 20 allows the
requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for the "provisional arrest
of the accused, pending receipt of the request for extradition;" and
that release from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest and
extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received
subsequently."
An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all

earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be
subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to
transfer to the demanding state
following the proceedings.

The Right To Bail Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Right To Bail Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Right to Bail

Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded as follows:

1. Tabao v. Barataman (AM No. MTJ-01-1384, 2002)

Instead of bail, Section 2 states that the person charged "shall be

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of

2. Sy Guan v. Amparo (GR No. L-1771, 1974)

Bail before conviction is a constitutional right of an accused, except in

3. Gov. of USA v. Purganan (GR No. 148571, 2002)

The constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4

Moreover, the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption

4. Cortes v. J. Catral (AM No. RTJ-97-1387, 1997)

Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case. The

Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states: No person

We reiterate the following duties of the trial judge in case an

1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the

2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application

5. People v. San Diego (GR No. L-29676, 1968)

The court's discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be

6. Gov. of Hong Kong v. Olalia (GR No. 153675, 2007)

But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized

(a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee

This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine

An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all

You might also like