Right to Bail

Section 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. (Art III)
Definition and General Purpose
• 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 set
by law. (Section 1, Rule 114)
• Bail is the answer of the criminal justice system to a vexing
question: what is to be done with the accused, whose guilt has
not yet been proven, in the "dubious interval," often years long,
between arrest and final adjudication? Bail acts as a reconciling
mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in
pretrial liberty and society’s interest in assuring the accused’s
presence at trial. (G.R. No. 189122 March 17, 2010 JOSE ANTONIO
LEVISTE vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS )
Forms

a. CORPORATE SURETY
Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a
surety in accordance with law and currently
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 its
board of directors.
Forms
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 after the approval of the bond,
the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the
certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds if the
land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration
Book on the space provided therefor, in the Registry of
Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on
the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the
provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned
Forms
c. CASH DEPOSIT
The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in
cash with the nearest collector or internal revenue or provincial,
city, or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the
court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or
filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit
and a written undertaking showing compliance with the
requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be
discharged from custody. 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
Forms
d. RECOGNIZANCE.
Whenever allowed by law or the Rules, the court may release a
person in custody to his own recognizance or that of a responsible
person
• REPUBLIC ACT No. 10389 - "Recognizance Act of 2012″. –
Recognizance is a mode of securing the release of any person in
custody or detention for the commission of an offense who is
unable to post bail due to abject poverty. The court where the case
of such person has been filed shall allow the release of the accused
on recognizance as provided herein, to the custody of a qualified
member of the barangay, city or municipality where the accused
resides.
Purpose
GENERALLY: To assure the attendance of the defendant,
when his or her presence is required in court.

SPECIFICALLY, the practical purposes of bail are

• to combine the administration of criminal justice with
the convenience of a person accused but not yet proven
guilty;
• to relieve the accused of imprisonment, and the State
of burden of keeping him, pending trial. (6 Am. Jur. 61)
•Bail is not a means of punishing a
defendant, nor should there be a
suggestion of revenue to the
government
Rule: Before conviction, every person is bailable except if charged
with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. Such a right
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. Thereby a regime of liberty is honored in the
observance and not in the breach. It is not beyond the realm of
probability, however, that a person charged with a crime, especially
so where his defense is weak, would just simply make himself scarce
and thus frustrate the hearing of his case. A bail is intended as a
guarantee that such an intent would be thwarted. It is, in the
language of Cooley, a "mode short of confinement which would, with
reasonable certainty, insure the attendance of the accused" for the
subsequent trial.. De la Camara vs. Enage. G.R. Nos. L-32951-2
September 17, 1971
Rule: The right to bail emanates from of the right to be presumed
innocent. It is accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may, by
reason of the presumption of innocence he enjoys, be allowed provisional
liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his appearance before any
court, as required under specified conditions.
It is bad enough that the CA granted bail on grounds other than those
stated in the Motion filed by respondent; it is worse that it granted bail on
the mere claim of the latter's illness. Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or
aged detainee or prisoner needing medical care outside the prison
facility. A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail.
The foregoing finding was not traversed or overturned by the CA in its
questioned Resolution. Such finding, therefore, remains controlling. It
warranted the outright denial of respondent's bail application. The CA,
therefore, erred when it granted respondent's Motion for Bail. G.R. No.
149723 October 27, 2006 PEOPLE vs. VICTOR KEITH FITZGERALD
Rule: In the present case, it is uncontroverted that petitioner’s application for bail and
for release on recognizance was denied. The determination that the evidence of guilt
is strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an application for bail or imported from
a trial court’s judgment of conviction, justifies the detention of an accused as a valid
curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. This accentuates the proviso that the
denial of the right to bail in such cases is "regardless of the stage of the criminal
action." Such justification for confinement with its underlying rationale of public self-
defense applies equally to detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted prisoners.
“As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed
placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail
so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be
detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized
by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. “ These inherent limitations,
however, must be taken into account only to the extent that confinement restrains the
power of locomotion or actual physical movement. G.R. No. 179817 June 27, 2008
ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV vs. HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL
When the right may be invoked
Bail in Military Courts
Rule: The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt
military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail. Aside from
structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate within the
framework of democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the
government for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of
revenues collected from the people. All other insurgent elements carry out their
activities outside of and against the existing political system.
National security considerations should also impress upon this Honorable Court that
release on bail of respondents constitutes a damaging precedent. Imagine a scenario
of say 1,000 putschists roaming the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or if the
assailed July 25,1990 Order were sustained, on "provisional" bail. The sheer number
alone is already discomforting. But, the truly disquieting thought is that they could
freely resume their heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of
duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court, and replace the same
with a system consonant with their own concept of government and justice. G.R. No.
93177 August 2, 1991 COMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA
Standards for Fixing Bail
Section 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. — 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 accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Rule: Expressions in varying, language spell out in a general way the
principles governing bail fixing. One is that the amount should be high
enough to assure the presence of defendant when required but no higher
than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Another is that "the
good of the public as well as the rights of the accused," and "the need for a
tie to the jurisdiction and the right to freedom from unnecessary restraint
before conviction under the circumstances surrounding each particular
accused", should all be balanced in one equation.
We are not to consider solely the inability of a defendant to secure bail in a
certain amount. This circumstance by itself does not make the amount
excessive.. Discretion, indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on the
question of bail. We must stress, however, that where conditions imposed
upon a defendant seeking bail would amount to a refusal thereof and render
nugatory the constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate to exercise our
supervisory powers to provide the required remedy. G.R. No. L-23599
September 29, 1967 . VILLASEÑOR, vs. HON. MAXIMO ABANO
Excessive bail shall not be required
• Rule: Where, however, the right to bail exists, it
should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum
that is excessive. So the Constitution commands. It is
understandable why. If there were no such
prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless. It
would have been more forthright if no mention of
such a guarantee were found in the fundamental law.
dela Camara v. Enage (41 SCRA 1)
Rule: There is grim irony in an accused being told that he has a right to
bail but at the same time being required to post such an exorbitant
sum. What aggravates the situation is that the lower court judge would
apparently yield to the command of the fundamental law. In reality, such
a sanctimonious avowal of respect for a mandate of the Constitution was
on a purely verbal level. There is reason to believe that any person in the
position of petitioner would under the circumstances be unable to resist
thoughts of escaping from confinement, reduced as he must have been to
a state of desperation. In the same breath as he was told he could be
bailed out, the excessive amount required could only mean that
provisional liberty would be beyond his reach. It would have been more
forthright if he were informed categorically that such a right could not be
availed of. There would have been no disappointment of expectations
then. It does call to mind these words of Justice Jackson, "a promise to
the ear to be broken to the hope, a teasing illusion like a munificent
bequest in a pauper's will. Villaseñor vs. Abano 21 SCRA 312 (1967).
Right to Bail and to Travel Abroad
Rule: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving
the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a
bail bond.
The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times
whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right
to travel.
If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more
so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right, and
whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite
the grant of bail to the latter. In fact, this inherent right of the court is recognized
by petitioner himself, notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to
leave the country, for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave
the country in the first place, if it were otherwise. G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986
RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS
Rule: It will be recalled that petitioner has posted bail which
we have declared legally valid and complete despite the
absence of petitioner at the time of filing thereof, by reason
of the peculiar circumstances and grounds hereinbefore
enunciated and which warrant a relaxation of the aforecited
doctrine in Feliciano. Perforce, since under the obligations
assumed by petitioner in her bail bond she holds herself
amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the
court, she may legally be prohibited from leaving the
country during the pendency of the case. G.R. Nos. 99289-
90 January 27, 1993 MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs.
CONRADO M. VASQUEZ
Rule: So it is also that "An accused released on
bail may be re-arrested without the necessity
of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the
Philippines without prior permission of the Court
where the case is pending (ibid., Sec. 20 [2nd
par. ]). G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991 RICARDO C.
SILVERIO vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS
Waiver of the Right to
Bail
Rule: Rights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall naturally into two classes:
(a) those in which the state, as well as the accused, is interested; and
(b) those which are personal to the accused, which are in the nature of
personal privileges.
Those of the first class cannot be waived; those of the second may be.
It is "competent for a person to waive a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and
to consent to action which would be invalid if taken against his will."
We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which
can be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver
would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs,
or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. G.R. No. 79269
June 5, 1991 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. PROCORO J. DONATO