V.

Bail

1. What is bail?
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 certain specified conditions. (Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court)

2. Types of bail
Bail may be given in the following forms:
(a) corporate surety,
(b) property bond,
(c) cash deposit, or
(d) recognizance (Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

a. Corporate surety — This is bail furnished by a corporation. Under the Rules of Court, any domestic or foreign corporation
which is licensed as a surety and authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and
an officer of the corporation duly authorized by the board of directors (Sec. 10, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

b. Property bond — A property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as security for the
amount of the bail. Within ten (10) days from the approval of the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation on the
certificate of title on file with the Registry of Deeds. If the land is unregistered, it is annotated in the Registration Book on the
space provided therefore in the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The registration is likewise made
on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned. Within ten (10)
days from the performance of the above acts, the accused shall submit his compliance to the court. His failure to do so shall
be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond, his re-arrest and detention (Sec. 11, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

c. Cash deposit — Bail may also be in the form of a cash deposit. The accused or any person acting in his behalf may
deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer or the clerk of court
where the case is pending, the amount of bail fixed by the court or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed
the case. The accused shall be discharged from custody upon submission of the certificate of deposit and a written
undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Court. The money deposited shall be considered as
bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made
the deposit (Sec. 14, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

d. Recognizance — This is an obligation of record entered into before some court or magistrate duly authorized to take it, with
the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for
trial.

A person in custody may be released on recognizance whenever allowed by law or by the Rules of Court (Sec. 15, Rule 114,
Rules of Court). The release may be either on the recognizance of the accused himself or that of a responsible person (Sec.
15, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

3. Constitutional basis of bail

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. (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines)

4. When can a person post bail?

The Constitution lays down the following fundamentals tenets on bail:
a. All persons charged, before their conviction for a criminal offense, shall be entitled to bail. This is the general rule.
b. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not impair the right to bail.
c. Excessive bail is not to be required.

Bail in the Military

-The right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.
-The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the
right to bail.

Bail in extradition proceedings

-The Court, however, did not hold that bail never applies in extradition cases. Instead, the Court explained that “x x x bail is not
a matter of right in extradition cases. However, the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion and
tyranny, as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights.

Exception:
After a potential extradite has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as an
exception, only upon a CLEAR AND CONVINCING showing:
a. That, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
b. That there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by
the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein.

5. What is a mittimus?
Mittimus refers to a warrant issued by a court to commit someone to imprisonment. It directs a sheriff or other officer to deliver the
person named in the writ to a prison or jail, and directs the jailor to receive and imprison the person.

6. When is bail a matter of right; exceptions

All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance 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
punished by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

7. When a matter of discretion

In Sec. 4(b) of Rule 114, bail is a matter of right before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offenses not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. But when the accused has been convicted in the Regional Trial Court of an
 offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the admission to bail becomes discretionary (Sec. 5,
Rule 114, Rules of Court).

8. Hearing of application for bail in capital offenses

In the hearing of the application for bail when a person is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong (Sec. 8,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court).

Aside from the prosecution having the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong, the hearing shall be summary.

Bail cannot be allowed to a person charged with a capital offense, or of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, without a
hearing upon notice to the prosecution (Global v. Infante)

9. Guidelines in fixing amount of bail

The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not
limited to, the following factors:

(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required.

10. Bail when not required

General Rule:
Bail is not required when the law or the Rules of Court so provide (Sec. 16, Rule 114, Rules of Court)

When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment prescribed for the
offense charged, he shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal.
Also, if the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment (Sec. 16, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

In cases filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for an offense punishable by imprisonment of less
than four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day, and the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused
under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest (Sec. 8 [b], Rule 112, Rules of Court).

Subject to certain exceptions, under Sec. 1 of R.A. 6036, bail shall not be required is a person is charged with a violation of a
municipal or city ordinance, a light felony and/or a criminal offense, the prescribed penalty for which is not higher than six (6)
months imprisonment and/or a fine of P2,000.00 or both where it is established that he is unable to post the required cash or bail
bond.

11. Increase or reduction of bail

Even after the accused is admitted to bail, the amount of bail may either be increased or reduced by the court upon good cause
(Sec. 20, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

The increased amount must be given within a reasonable period if the accused want to avoid being taken into custody. The rule is
clear: “x x x When increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount within a
reasonable period” (Sec. 20, Rule 114, Rules of Court).

12. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail

 FORFEITURE
When the presence of the accused is required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the
court on a given date and time.

If the accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondmen given thirty (30) days within
which to produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail.
Within the said period, the bondsmen must:

a. Produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production; and
b. Explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.

Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The
court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.

 CANCELLATION
Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof
of his death.

The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of
conviction.

13. Application not a bar to objections in illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary Investigation
An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant
issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of preliminary investigation of the charge against him,
provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than
the start of the case (Sec. 26, Rule 115, Rules of Court).
 14. Application for Bail in Extrajudicial Cases

Case: Gov’t of Hongkong v. Olalia, April 19, 2007

Facts:
Private respondent Muñoz was charged before Hong Kong Court. Warrants of arrest were issued and by virtue of a final decree the
validity of the Order of Arrest was upheld. The petitioner Hong Kong Administrative Region filed a petition for the extradition of the
private respondent. In the same case, a petition for bail was filed by the private respondent.

The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was no Philippine law granting the same in extradition cases and that the
respondent was a high “flight risk”. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and was granted by the respondent judge
subject to the following conditions:

1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the condition that accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and answer the issues
raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of this Court, will further appear for
judgment. If accused fails in this undertaking, the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the government;

2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court;

3. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure order before this Court
even in extradition proceeding; and

4. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire to the nearest office, at any time
and day of the week; and if they further desire, manifest before this Court to require that all the assets of accused, real and personal, be
filed with this Court soonest, with the condition that if the accused flees from his undertaking, said assets be forfeited in favor of the
government and that the corresponding lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly.

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the said order but was denied by the respondent judge. Hence, this instant petition.

Issue
Whether or not a potential extraditee is entitled to post bail

Ruling
A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.

Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private
respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the
right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.

On the other hand, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective
extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty.

In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding
Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo GR No. 153675 April 2007, that the constitutional
provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, the same being available only in criminal proceedings. The Court took
cognizance of the following trends in international law:

(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international;

(2) the higher value now being given to human rights;

(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and

(4) the 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.

In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the individual and the sanctity of human
rights, the Court departed from the ruling in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail

15. Effect of application for bail on objections over Illegal Arrest or Lack of Preliminary Investigation

Cases:
a. Leviste vs. Almeda, G.R. No. 182677 August 3, 2010

FACTS: Jose Antonio Leviste was charged with homicide  for the death of Rafael de las Alas before the Regional Trial Court, presiding
Judge Elmo Alameda, issued a commitment order against petitioner who was placed under police custody while confined at
the Makati Medical Center.

The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed, an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying,  for the deferment of the proceedings to allow
the public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense.

The RTC issued an order deferring petitioner’s arraignment and allowing the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the
proper offense and submit a recommendation within 30 days from its inception, inter alia; and denying reconsideration of the first
order. Petitioner assailed these orders via certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals.
Meantime, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion before the trial court to defer acting on the public prosecutor’s
recommendation on the proper offense until after the appellate court resolves his application for injunctive reliefs, or alternatively, to
grant him time to comment on the prosecutor’s recommendation and thereafter set a hearing for the judicial determination of probable
cause.  Petitioner also separately moved for the inhibition of Judge Alameda with prayer to defer action on the admission of the
Amended Information.

The trial court nonetheless issued the other assailed orders, which admitted the Amended Information for murder  and directed the
issuance of a warrant of arrest; and order which set the arraignment on February 13, 2007.   Petitioner questioned these two orders
via supplemental petition before the appellate court. Hence this petition.

Records show that the scheduled arraignment pushed through during which petitioner refused to plead, drawing the trial court to enter
a plea of “not guilty” for him. The trial court, absent any writ of preliminary injunction from the appellate court, went on to try petitioner
under the Amended Information.  The trial court found petitioner guilty of homicide. From the Decision, petitioner filed an appeal to the
appellate court. The appellate court dismissed petitioner’s petition, hence, his present petition.

ISSUE:  Whether or not the amendment of the Information from homicide to murder is considered a substantial amendment, which
would make it not just a right but a duty of the prosecution to ask for a preliminary investigation. 

RULING: The Court answers in the affirmative.

A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction
of the court.  All other matters are merely of form.  

The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood
would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the
information in the one form as in the other.  An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged
therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment
had each been held to be one of form and not of substance.

Any remedial measure springing from the reinvestigation – be it a complete disposition or an intermediate modification of the charge –
is eventually addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which must make an independent evaluation or assessment of the
merits of the case.  Since the trial court would ultimately make the determination on the proposed course of action, it is for the
prosecution to consider whether a reinvestigation is necessary to adduce and review the evidence for purposes of buttressing the
appropriate motion to be filed in court. 

More importantly, reinvestigation is required in cases involving a substantial amendment of the information.  Due process of law
demands that no substantial amendment of an information may be admitted without conducting another or a new preliminary
investigation.           

In Matalam v. The 2nd Division of the Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that a substantial amendment in an information entitles an
accused to another preliminary investigation, unless the amended information contains a charge related to or is included in the original
Information. Matalam adds that the mere fact that the two charges are related does not necessarily or automatically deprive the
accused of his right to another preliminary investigation. Notatu dignum is the fact that both the original Information and the amended
Information in Matalam were similarly charging the accused with violation of Section 3(e) of theAnti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Considering that another or a new preliminary investigation is required, the fact that what was conducted in the present case was a
reinvestigation does not invalidate the substantial amendment of the Information.  There is no substantial distinction between a
preliminary investigation and a reinvestigation  since both are conducted in the same manner and for the same objective of determining
whether there exists sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. What is essential is that petitioner was placed on guard to defend himself from the
charge of murder after the claimed circumstances were made known to him as early as the first motion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97761
are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

b. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003

FACTS:

The case is a consolidation of 3 petitions filed by Edward Serapio which assailed resolutions of the 3rd Division of the
Sandiganbayan in denying his petition for bail, motion for reinvestigation and motion to quash, and a petition for habeas corpus in
relation to a plunder case against him.

Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and legal counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. He received a
Php200 million donation from Chavit Singson. He received the donation and turned it over to the treasurer of the Foundation and it was
deposited to the account with the Equitable PCI Bank.

In 2000, Singson publicly accused Estrada and his cohorts of engaging in several illegal activities triggering the filing with the
Ombudsman several criminal complaints against Estrada. Petitioner was among the persons included in the criminal charges.

Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan several informations against Estrada and other persons and no bail was
recommended for the provisional released of the accused. Ombudsman found probable cause for plunder and petitioner filed an MR. It
was denied because the information was already filed with the Sandiganbayan.

Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution finding probable cause to justify the issuance of warrants of arrests for the accused,
including petitioner. Petitioner was detained at Camp Crame for the said charge. Arraignment was set and petitioner filed a petition for
Bail. Several other bail meetings did not push through.

Even before the Sandiganbayan can resolve the issues, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for habeas corpus
and certiorari praying that the issued Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be declared void because he was denied due process.
ISSUE:

Whether the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner of his right to due process of the law.

HELD:

No. The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but it is a right conferred by a statute .
Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to answer the charges against him during the preliminary investigation. Jurisprudence
dictates that the Court do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman in its conduct of preliminary investigations. It was
enunciated in Raro v. Sandiganbayan that in the performance of the task to determine probable cause, the Ombudsman’s
discretion is paramount. The lack of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information filed before the court.

The denial of his prayer for a writ of habeas corpus does not deny him of his right to due process because there is no basis for
the issuance of the writ in favor of the petitioner. Petitioner has voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities. Habeas corpus does
not lie because there was no deprivation of liberty. Also, the delay in the hearing of the bail cannot be solely pinned upon the
Sandiganbayan. Petitioner is also to be blamed. Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting one’s right to bail.