Rights of the Accused (Bail)

Asssume that a judge issues a warrant of arrest , when it happens , what

would be the remedy of the person against whom the warrant of arrest is
issued by the judge?
Remedies :
1. To Put Up Bail
Purposes:
to secure his temporary liberty while the case is being tried in court
security
for the release of the person in custody of the law and
conditioned in his appearance in court whenever his appearance is
required.
Presumption : A person is innocent until proven otherwise.
Kinds of Bail : ( in our jurisdiction)
a. Cash Bail Bond cash amount , check , regular check or managers
check to be put up for the security or liberty of a person during the
pendency of the case. But if the person doesnt have cash to pay for the
recommended payment then he may put up a Surety Bond.
Ex. The payment to be put up is 100k and he doesnt have that amount
then he can just go to the surety company as permitted by the Supreme
Court and pay the premium which is normally 10% of the recommended
Bail Bond so instead of paying 100k to the court he only needs to pay
10k to the Surety Company and the latter will issue what is known as
Surety Bond. A guarantee that the company will ensure to the court the
person will be present whenever his presence or attendance is required by
the Court .
But if he doesnt have premium but he has real properties covered by
Torrens Title then he may want to put up that property as his bond for bail
to secure his temporary liberty during the pendency of the case. This is
recognizance normally happens if the offense is minor in fraction where
the imposable penalty is 1 month / where the offender is a minor where in
such situation he may be release on the cognizance of the DSWD or his
parents as the case may be.
If the information is filed in court the fiscal will put the amount to be
payed in the information. The amount recommend by the fiscal may be
reduced or may be increased by the judge. In other words, the judge has
the discretion to increase and /or decrease the bail but he has to take into

consideration the circumstances mentioned under Sec. 9 Sec. 114 of the

Rules of Court.
Money / property is returned
at
the
termination
case/acquittal/conviction.
b. Surety Bond - money/ property will not be returned
c. Release on Recognizance as may be provided by law

of

the

Factors to be considered by the judge in adjusting (increasing/

decreasing )the recommended bail : Set forth under Sec. 9 Rule 114 of
the Supreme Court
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Financial capacity of the accused

Nature and circumstances of the offense
Penalty Impossible
Character and the reputation of the accused (e.g recidivist)
Age and health of the accused (e.g 80 years old)
Weight and consistency of the evidence (e.g fugitive in justice)
Accused is facing other charges within which is also in bail

When can the accused apply for bail?

If the information or case is file against a person in court, then at that
point in time the person may already apply for bail since he is already
facing criminal case.
The moment that a person is deprived of his liberty then he can already
put up bail for his temporary liberty.
What happens if the person is detained but no case is filed against him ?
Can he already apply for bail even if the information is not yet filed
against him?
Yes because if a person against whom a case is already filed in court may
be allowed to apply for bail then there is no reason why a person detained
had no cases filed against him be denied that opportunity.
How will the judge know if the offense is bailable or not?
Conduct a hearing and the prosecution made to disclose as to what
possible case would be filed against that person.
If it is a non-bailable offense then the judge may deny the bail
Otherwise, if the offense is bailable then the judge may grant the
application.
Matters of Bail : Sec. 13 Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution ( review) which
provides in essence that all persons except those charged with reclusion perpetua

when in any event the evidence is strong upon conviction be bailable by sufficient
surities or recognizance as may be provided by the court.
Sec. 13. Article 3 Provides that if the offense is punishable by reclusion
perpetua and evidence of guilt against it is strong then bail is not a
matter of right. Such that even if the evidence of guilt is strong but the penalty /
offense does not carry with it the penalty of reclusion perpetua then bail is a matter
of right.
If you are the lawyer of the accuse and what is stated in the information is
non-bailable, what will you do?
Even if the information says that the information is non-bailable , you still
have a remedy then file a motion or application for bail. You need to
impress upon the court while the offense is punishable by reclusion
perpetua yet the evidence of guilt is not strong because even if the
offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua but the evidence of guilt is not
strong then its a good chance that youre client be granted bail.
Once such motion is filed, the court will conduct a hearing and will direct
the prosecution to present evidence so as to establish the strength of the
evidence against the accused.
Assume that the accused filed a motion for bail and the prosecution does
not want to present evidence but the court directs prosecution to present
evidence during the bail hearing , can the judge forthwith issue an order
approving the application for bail without conducting a hearing?
No. Even if the prosecution does not oppose the motion or application for
bail or the prosecution does not want to present evidence. The judge is
mandated to conduct a hearing to determine whether or not the evidence
of the guilt of the accused is strong.
Failon vs. Lumacas 242 SCRA 110 Hearing is mandatory even if
the prosecution does not oppose the motion or petition for bail.
Application of Sec. 4 and 5 of Rule 114 on matters of bail , the criminal
case is filed to your client before the MTC because the offense is
cognizable by MTC/MTCC . The imposable penalty is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years and 1 day , 6 years below, is bail allowed as a right
while case is pending is MTC, MTTC, ?
Yes because it does not carry with it the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Bail
is a matter of right during the pendency in court.
Assume that after trial, MTC / MTCC / MCTC renders the judgement of
conviction, guilty as charged. But the accused elevated the case on appeal to

the RTC and the accused through his counsel before the record be transmitted to
the RTC filed a motion before this court seeking that he be allowed to continually
enjoy his liberty on the basis of the belief that he earlier put up. He has to file a
motion before the trial court and not to the appellate court, Is bail a matter of
right while a case is pending before the RTC during the pendency of the
case on appeal before the RTC ?
YES. Bail is a matter of right even a case is pending on appeal
before the RTC. Before or after conviction by the MTC and even if
the case is on appeal before the RTC, bail is a matter of right.
But the suppose that RTC affirms the judgement of conviction but the
accused undoubted elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, can the
accused file a motion before the RTC asking that he be allowed to enjoy
temporary liberty under the bail earlier put up during the pendency of his
case before this court? A motion has to be filed in the RTC.
Bail is a matter of discretion. In other words, it is discretionary on the part
of the RTC whether or not to approve such application of bail.
A case is filed before the RTC where the penalty imposable for the offense
is lower than reclusion perpetua. Is bail a matter of right assuming that
the evidence of guilt is strong?
Yes because the penalty is lower than reclusion perpetua. Bail is a
matter of right.
Assume after trial, the court renders a judgement of conviction but the
accused elevated the case on appeal to the CA , can the accused asked
the rtc to continue enjoying his temporary liberty under the bail he earlier
put up ?
Bail is a matter of discretion. Bail is discretionary at this stage of the
proceedings but the motion should be filed before the RTC. Discretionary
on the RTC whether to grant the bail or not.
General Rule : Bail application is discretionary while the case is pending
on appeal before the CA but if the RTC renders a judgement of conviction
imposing the penalty exceeding 6 years such bail application should be
denied if any of the circumstances is present : pending on appeal before
the CA ( SHOULD BE DENIED BY RTC) discretion lies on the trial court
1. Accused is recidivist, quasi-recidivist , habitual delinquent
2. Accused previously evaded a sentence or escaped from illegal
confinement or has previously violated a conditions of his bail

3. It is established that the accused has committed an offense with

which it starts with RTC while he is under probation or under parole
or under conditional pardon. It should be denied.
4. It is established that the accused is a flight risk , there is a good
chance that he will commit another offense reviewed by the CA.
Case is cognizable by RTC, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua or
higher and the evidence of guilt is strong. Is bail a matter of right in the
RTC level ?
No
Yet after trial a judgment of conviction is rendered but the imposed
penalty by the court is lower than reclusion perpetua ( eg. Charge is for
murder yet accused is convicted for homicide) evidently the charge is
unbailable but after trial the accused was not convicted for an offense
with a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua then the accused protesting
with conviction elevated the case to the CA on appeal. (1) May the
acccuase apply for bail? (2) Is it a matter of right or discretion ? (3) if its
a matter of discretion then whos discretion to grant?
(1)Yes after all he is convicted for an offense lower than reclusion
perpetua
(2)No its not a matter of right. It is a matter of discretion.
(3)Its the discretion of the the Court of Appeals not the RTC .
Apply the bail application before the CA in situation where the
offense is originally not bailable.
In the previous instances, Alegado filed the application for bail in the trial
court appeal as the case may be when the offense is punishable by a
penalty lower than reclusion perpetua but discretion on appeal then file
the petition before the CA.

Is there no remedy if the accused is imposed with a penalty of reclusion

perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong?
Remedy : For humanitarian reason ( if he is already of advanced
age and critically ill as was in the case of Delarama v. Peoples
Court) - remote exception
Is bail a matter of right in extradition cases?
US vs. Purgada - Not a matter of right coz after all as worded under Sec.
13 Art 3 , bail applies only to criminal cases coz it mentions about
conviction and in civil cases there is no such thing as conviction. Bail is

not a matter of right in extradition cases more so that an extradite is

presumed to be a flight risk. Under the rule of US v. Purgada was modified
in the case of Government of Hongkong vs. Judge Mulalla 15365 april 19
2007 , if the extradite can present to the court by clear and convincing
evidence that he is no longer a flight risk and would faithfully abide by the
orders of the court then he may be granted bail. If he can show by clear
and convincing evidence that he is no longer a flight risk. Clear and
convincing evidence is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but
higher than preponderance of evidence. But there is no exact
mathematical formula. At the end of the day its up to the court.
Once a person has gotten bail , can he travel abroad?
They can live abroad but they have to ask permission from the
court otherwise if they do that without permission from the court
then his bail would be cancelled and an alias warrant may be
issued against him .
Is bail a matter of right in military tribunals ?
Gobernador vs. Sevilla 200 SCRA 80 SC ruled that bail is not a
matter of right in cases pending or tried before the military
tribunals. (sui generis coz its high risk since they are armed)
The president pursuant to his military powers under Sec. 18 Art. 7
suspends the privilege of habeas corpus ( martial law) and a person is
arrested during that period if the offense is punishable by penalty lower
than reclusion perpetua , is bail a matter of righ?
Sec. 13 Art. 3 expressly provided that the right to bail should not
be impaired even if the privilege of habeas corpus shall have
been suspended. Even during martial law or even when the
president declares the suspension of privilege of habeas corpus.
Bail is still a matter of right provided that the offense does not
carry with it an offense of reclusion perpetua and strong evidence
of guilt.