CPRO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Rule 114 Bail............................................................................................................................................................ 1

General Notes:
Case Title

Facts

Doctrine/ Notes

Bail

San Miguel v Maceda

Taborite v Sollesta

*Judges order cancelled bail deprived of right to bail

San Miguel accused of violating RA 6425 - selling .50 g of
metamphetamine HCL
Jumped bail on May 10
May 10 Alumbre issued bench warrant (WOA) canceled
bail bond of 60 k and fixed new at 120k
Sept 8 01 san miguwl arrested
Sept 12 state prosec filed motion to cancel bail
Sept 17 San miguel filed opposition, same day Judge
Maceda (RESP) granted motion of prosec to cancel
Sept 19 hearing for motion Judge maceda considered
motion of San Miguel as MR and ordered prosec to file reply
Nov 21 he issued clarificatory order
San Miguel filed complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law,
OCA said SAN MIGUEL pet meritorious and recommended
complaint be redocketed as admin matter. Judge to be fined
5k
SC agrees with OCA San Miguel entitled to bail as a
matter of right
(For discussion: even if charged with murder bail still
discretionary Andres v Beltran)

SC: Judge not guilty of gross ignorance of law. But deprived

San Miguel of RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
Maceda guilty of Simple Misconduct 5k with warning

Sec 4 Rule 114: before conviction in RTC of of

punishable by rec perp, death, or LI, all person
custody shall be admitted to bail AS A MATTER
RIGHT

Sec 13 Art III

All persons except charged wit RECPERP sha
conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties...

I: WON Judge Maceda denied San Miguels rig

when he issued (Sept 17 Order)?

H: Yes,
He was entitled to bail as a matter of right pe
crime was prision correccional only. This is tru
he has previously jumped bail

Remedy would be to increase not deny him th

bail. (SY Guan v Amparo)

Records show that complainant was charged w

violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 64
is punishable by prision correccional.
Clarificatory order mere afterthought

Maceda:
Osorio co accused was able to gain pr
Also that he only CANCELLED the
recommendation of the prosecutor 60k

SC: Osorio only able to do so after Nov 21 a

clarificatory order, Sept 17 order clear impress
bail had been cancelled SO SAN MIGUEL st
jail for 2 mos as result. But 60k was already fo
when San Miguel Jumped bail. Also, no eviden
adduced to prove high prob of jumping bail

*No notice to public prosecutors guilty of gross ignorance

CPRO
Case Title

Serapio v Sandiganbayan

Facts

Admin case with OCA : oppression and knowingly rendering

unjust judgment in Criminal Case No. 3398[2] for murder
Judge Sollesta presiding judge of MCTC South Cotabato
Taborite and Gallardo widow sister of Bienvenido Taborite
killed by accused
Reynaldo Divino accused
Complaint Murder filed
Sept 1 arrest of Divino applied for Bail
Sept 23 hearing for bail no subpoena sent to
complainants and PNP CIG
Reset to SEC 30 public pros not notified; only counsel of
Divino and PNP CIG appeared
Oct 21 bail bond granted 50k Jan 14 bail 20 release
SC: Sollesta guilty of gross ignorance of the law and fined
P20,000, with warning

SB denied petition for bail in plunder case accused together

with ERAP
Mem of BOT of Erap Muslim youthFoundation 200km
donation fr Chavit
Chavit accused ERAP of engaging in Jueteng in OMB
No bail was recommended
OMB denied his motion for Reconsideration already filed w
SB
Filed for bail in April 27 Hearing set on May 21-25
Reset to June 18-28
SB Reso in May 31 -denying Omnibus Motion of Petitioner
SB Arraigned he refused to plead
Certiorari by Petitioner (Jinggoy also filed)
Deferred the hearing of his petition for bail to July 10,
2001

Doctrine/ Notes
Section 18 Rule 114
Notice of application to the prosecutor. In the
for bail under Section 8 of this Rule, the c
give reasonable notice of the hearin
prosecutor or require him to su
recommendation. (Emphasis ours)

I: WON granting of bail by Judge Sollesta prop

H: No
No notice to prosecution deprived opp
oppose granting of bail.
No opportunity on the part of the prosecutio
that the evidence of guilt against the accused

Granting bail in non-bailable offenses

hearing is gross ignorance of the law

OCA Sollesta granted bail without notice to

deprived opportunity to oppose
Sollesta evindence weak

Cortes v Catral DUTIES OF JUDGE in ca

bail filed
1. notify prosec (whether bail is matte
discretion
2. discretion conduct hearing WO
refuseds to present evidence
3. Decide wheter guilt is strong based o
of prosec
4. If not strong, discharge the accused;
deny petition
I: GADALEJ of SB when they denied Omnibu
hold in abeyance WOA, det PC for Plunder

H:
Court does not interfere with OMB discretion in
of PI
Serapio to establish gadalej, he did not do this

I: Whether or not petitioner should first be arra

before hearings of his petition for bail may be
conducted?
H: NO, SB Gadalej no need for arraignment
hearings for bail.

SC:
The arraignment of an accused is not a prereq
the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail.
is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is d
his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary su

HOWEVER, For when bail is a matter of right

ii

CPRO
Case Title

Facts

Doctrine/ Notes
accused may apply for and be granted bail eve
arraignment

In fine, the Sandiganbayan committed a grav

its discretion amounting to excess of juri
ordering the arraignment of petitioner before p
with the hearing of his petition for bail.

People:
The People insist that arraignment is necessar
bail hearings may be commenced, because it
upon arraignment that the issues are joined
SB Denied motion to quash - hence certiorari, 2 times
(said charged more than one offense, amended info did not
include plunder)

Section 8, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Co

evidence presented during such proceedings a
considered automatically reproduced at the tria

May 31 reso assailed SB GADALEJ

Serapio:
On the first issue, petitioner contends that the
Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of it
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisd
when it deferred the hearing of his petition for
10, 2001, arraigned him on said date and ente
of not guilty for him when he refused to be arra

He insists that the Rules on Criminal Procedur

amended, does not require that he be arraigne
prior to the conduct of bail hearings since the l
stand alone and must, of necessity, be heard
immediately.

Andres v Beltran
*cancel bail bond no counsel pres on hearing, grave abuse
of authority by J

I: JB guilty of gross ignorance of the law?

Wilson Andres crime murder RTC Tuguegarao

H: Yes

Case: administrative case for conduct unbecoming of a

judge, serious misconduct, inefficiency and gross ignorance
of the law.

Andres deprived of liberty

Deprived Andres right to liberty
Failure of counsel of accused to appear not va
for cancellation of bail nor for increase of bail

J Principe granted bail ordered release

After presentation of evidence Andres filed a motion to
dismiss

Accused should not be punished for the abse

counsel by the cancellation of his bail and his
detention.

Nov 25 1999 - Judge Beltran denied motion

iii

CPRO
Case Title

Facts

Nov 29 JB sent subpoena to Andres set hearing on Jan 31

Jan 31 2000 hearing counsel of A not present Atty
Alcid
J Beltran cancelled bail bond
Feb 9 2000 order for release issued since TC found no
notice of hearing was sent to counsel of Andres
Postponements : all in 1998 approved by J,
SC: Grave abuse of authority when he cancelled bail bond

Doctrine/ Notes
Misconception: Murded bailable - Discretio
that if accused is charged of murder = not enti
at all or that it is non bailable
- It is discretionary and no longer a matter of ri
calls for judicial determination
Cannot be forfeited pursuant to Sec 21 Rule 1
violation

Contentions:
OCA: fine 2k plus warning failure of counsel
ground for cancellation esp if accused is prese

Andres: abuse of authority, no notice to counse

have been given day in court
Delay was caused by postponements by RTCJ
judge allowed postponements due to absenc
counsel (11/17,4/25,5/25,9/24 in 1998)
JB:
- not entitled to bail as matter of right
- entitled to own assessment of evidence
- there was ground to recall order co accuse
evidence pointed to guilt of Andress
- there was delay in presentation of evidence

Leviste v CA
Jose Levista charged with murder of Rafael de Las Alas
Convicted of homicide (ISL 6 years to 12 years rec temp)
Filed for bail - citing advanced age and health
CA denied bail application
Case: GAD in denial of bail cited Sec 5 Rule 114, if penalty
is >6 years bail MUST be granted to an appellant pengding
appeal
SC: Petition Dismissed
Considering that the accused was in fact convicted by the
trial court, allowance of bail pending appeal should be
guided by a stringent-standards approach

I: In bail pending appeal, if penalty is >6 years

bail be automatically granted absent any of cir
in Sec 5, Rule 115?

(Circumstances: Recidivist, escape, com unde

prob of flight, risk that he would commit anothe
H: No, denial of bail pending appeal is a
wise discretion.

Wrong interpretation of Sec 5 by Leviste

If no circumstances in sec 5 Appellate has d
Bail may STILL be denied if circ are absent
Believes that if circ not present bail will be gran
- this reduces court into fact finding body only

CA no GAD
CA had jurisdiction and did not act with GAD
was not arbitrary and leviste did not prove suc
It was discretionary (re: denial of bail pending

Certiorari not proper

the extraordinary writ of certiorari will not b
to cure errors in proceedings or erroneous
conclusions of law or fact

iv

CPRO
Case Title

People v Fitzgerald

Facts

Doctrine/ Notes
Certiorari filed was not proper only applies if
interlocutory order was rendered without or in
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion am
to lack or excess of jurisdiction Failed to est
acted with GAD

2 scenarios 2 stage perspective

Determination of discretion if circ present, co
determine if sound discretion or stringent discr
be used

Exercise of discretion
If falls on 1st scenario sound discretion con
relevant info
2nd scenario stringent discretion find proof
circumstances in sec 5 then revoke if found
*7610 inducing minor to Prostitution , Bail granted due to old
age, health and justice, People assailed as crime was
punishable by reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt
strong
Fitzgerald accused of inducing AAA 13 yr old minor to
engage in prostitution. But acquitted for Rape
RTC found him guilty of Ra 7610 8 yrs and 1 day prision
Mayor 17 years rec temp
Will be deported after and barred from entry in PH
Filed for bail and denied by RTC possibility of flight, undue
risk that he would commit similar offense.
CA affirmed RTC decision modified penalty fro REC TEMP
to REC PERP (20 years)
Motion for new trial due to matl evidence CA granted
MR by people denied
Fitzgerald motion to fix bail Both denied - Motion to fix bail
denied Sec 7 Rule 114 - Capital offense not bailable where
evidence of guilt is strong. CA said evidence of guilt strong
so bail cannot be granted
Assailed Resolution by PEOPLE: CA granted temporary
liberty due to old age and health ground of justice since
new trial granted 100k bailbond hold departure listof
BOI

Sec 4 matter of right, rec perp discretionar

Sec 5 after conviction in RTC - Discretionary
penalty IS NOT death, LI, Rec perp + circumst

Sec 7 Rule 114 - Capital offense not bailable w

evidence of guilt is strong. CA said evidence o
strong so bail cannot be granted
I: Ca had jurisdiction?
H: Yes

CA in motion for new trial maintains jurisdi

When CA grants new trial under Rule 123 th
decide on their own doesnt relinquish to TC
jurisdiction over the case. In case they ordere
submit evidence to them hence they still m
appellate jurisdiction
When SC grants new trial it vacates judgment
judgment of CA.

I: WON CA erred when it allowed Fitzgerald

H: YES, bail not sick pass, no proof of ailm
ground was not in motion by Fitz, Undue ri
committing similar offense present - pedop

CA granted bail on grounds other than those s

Motion filed by Fitz

Bail not sick pass no finding of grave ailm

CA
Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged det
prisoner needing medical care outside the pris
A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail.

CPRO
Case Title

Chua v CA

Esteban v Alhambra

Facts

Doctrine/ Notes
Only declared not in best of health

Finding that undue risk similar offense wou

committed was present
Dr Muncada testified that pedophilia is recurre
commission of similar offense is high.

Sec 4 and 5 bail matter of discretion on court i

punishable by death, RP, LI when evidence of
strong

*Chiok invested stocks of Chua, estafa, did not appear for

judgment, filed bail - cancelled by TC, CA issued TRO of
ORDER hence Certiorari filed by Chua
Chua invested in securities with Chiok who represented
himself to be a licensed broker from Bernard Securities
Trusted him and gave 9M to invest, when she asked he
admitted he spent it
Chua found out he was merely telephone operator in
Bernard and filed case for estafa, Chiok denied guilt and
said he was in partnership with Chua re: sale of $, amount
was for their partnership
For judgment resp and counsel failed to appear
reschedule fr Jan 26 to Feb 1 did not appear again and
so judgment rendered
Court: Chiok guilty - 12 years for estafa 20 years rec temp,
ordered to pay 9.563 M with interest
Feb 1 date of judgment motion to cancel bail on ground
that he might flee was FILED
Feb 13 MR by Chiok Feb 15 hearing for cancellation
(Feb 1 filed) May 28 1999 OMNIBUS ORDER
cancelled bail, denied MR June 19 Chiok filed with CA
WOA issued since he did not appear July 27 CA
issued TRO on omnibus
Sept 20 CA said Chiok not to be deprived of liberty since
not capital offense, prob that he will flee is conjectural
SC: Grant petition.

*cancellation of bail bonds denied by J Alhambra,

GADALEJ filed by Anita, SC: No Gadalej, Sec 14 on
cancellation will only apply if surrendered by bondsman,
Judge Alhamra denied apoplication for cancellation of cash
bail by petitioner Anita Esteban posted for Gerardo Esteban
(bro in law) 20k each
Gerardo arrested while out on bail, Anita refused to post bail

Sec 5, Rule 114: CA may review, on motion of

RTC decision
Sec 5, Par 3: b, d, e risk of flight, evaded sen
commit another crime

I: CA GAD when they issued writ of Prelim Inju

enjoining arrest of Chiok?

H: YES, writ no legal basis, certiorari not prope

judgment should have been promulgated when
not appear

Writ enjoining implement. order X legal ba

Must show rights, and acts of TC violate such

Here he has no right to be freed under Sec 5 ,

d,e flight risk, violated conditions of bail/ eva
sentence, risk that he will commit

Certiorari for TRO and Writ of PI not proper

What is proper? Motion to Review under Sec 5
CA may review on motion of any party, review
of RTC

Filing of separate petition is prohibited contra

MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS
Non appearance at judgment
If for conviction lose remedies
Court will order arrest
Sec 14, Rule 114
Cash bonds different from other bonds
Applied for fine and expenses

I: Alhambra GADALEJ when denied cancellati

H: No, petitioner submission that upon surrend
may be cancelled misplaced. She did not surre

vi

CPRO
Case Title

Heirs of Sarah Burgos v

CA

Enrile v People /
Sandiganbayan

Facts

again.
Filed an application for cancellation of cash bonds Judge
Alhambra denied bonds to be applied to fine and
expenses, in custodia legis, deemed to be accuseds deposit
Case filed by Anita GADLEJ by judge when he denied
application of cancellation of bonds
SC: No GADALEJ. Cash bond deemed as money of
accused. No surrender by Anita, Sec 14 (cancellation of
bonds upond surrender) cannot apply

Doctrine/ Notes
accused, he was arrested. Also cash bonds wi
applied to fine and costs and excess will be re
(under Sec 14)
Surety or bondsman must surrender
Surrender accused for Sec 14 to apply

Money deposited by 3rd part deemed money

accused (Esler v Ledesma)
Parties are state and defendant
Unlike in bonds

Anita: application allowed under Sec 19 now 2

114. Bail may be cancelled upon surrender of
accused or proof of death
*Sarah and uncle killed, land transaction, Co was
mastermind allegedly, he surrendered, CA allowed him to
post bail no strong evidence of guilt, Certiorari by Heirs
dismissed hence case, Dismissal questioning bail without
OSG intervention proper? Yes. Re: 114, Bail but aspect of
criminal prosecution, even if out on bail, trial could still
proceed on civil action. Petition Dismissed.
Sarah Burgos and Uncle killed due to alleged land
transaction
Land transaction between live in partner So and Respondent
Co
Aman and Martin arrested admitted their part in Killing,
pointed to Bergonia, Say and Co who was mastermind.
AMan and Martin acquitted. After 10 years (2002) Co
surrendered.
2 counts of murder pleaded not guilty
Sept 25 02 filed petition for bail RTC granted evidence of
guilt not strong (based only on testimony of David, Police
testimony irregular;y executed testimony, no conspiracy
claimed, Aman and Martin werent presented in bail hearing,
uncorroborated evidence)
CA denied MRs of Sarahs Heirs, hence this case.
SC: Denied petition of Sarahs Heirs.
Certiorari by Enrile to annul reso by SB denying his motion
to fix bail GADALEJ
June 5 Omb charged Enrile with plunder (PDAF)
June 10 /16 prayed that he be allowed to post bail
Jult 3 denied motion he was not under custody SB
ordered his arrest
Enrile voluntarily surrendered to Dir Magaglong of CIDG in
Camp Crame confined in PNP Gen Hosp
Allow him to post bail: no strong evindence of guilt, penalty
only rec temp, not flight risk, health and age
Assailed SB RESO: July 14 DENIED Motion to fix
mitigating circum not taken into consideration, no det of

I: WON CA correctly dismissed special action

certiorari which questioned granting of bail, wit
OSGs intervention?

H: Yes
Mandate or authority to represent state lies on
OSG.

Actions esslly involving the interest of state if n

by the SOLGEN are as a rule, summarily dism

Granting bail is but aspect of crim action

Grant or denial has no impact on civil liability o
since there is arraignment, trial ang judgment
proceed even in his absence.

I: WON certiorari is meritorious?

H: Yes

SC
Presumption of innocence under right of due

Bail may be granted as right or of discretion (S

III) upon arrest or detention he CAN CLAIM
of provisional liberty under Bill of Rights
Sec 7 Rule 113 Capital offense

vii

CPRO
Case Title

Facts
guilt yet so premature to fix bail
2nd Assailed Reso: Deny MR of Enrile (for certiorari)
not flight risk, age health, he voluntarily surrenderd
Enrile: Presence of mitigating circumstances
SC: RTC can decide
Granted certiorari due to health, cited Dela Rama v
Peoples court where bail granted to petitioner who has
TB and Pharyngitis.
It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to
Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be
properly addressed and better attended to by competent
physicians in the hospitals of his choice.
SB ignored objective of bail to ensure appearance of
accused during trial disregarded fragile health of enrile.
GADALEJ. SB RESO SET ASIDE.

Doctrine/ Notes

Hearing with notice is indispensable before ba

granted, may be summary

Enriles poor health justifies his admission

- Prosecution did not contest Enriles av
only argued that mitigating circums
do not have bearing and will not red
Enriles favor
- Dr Gonzales fr PGH testified: Enrile
Hypertension, heart disease presen
Arrythmia, Asthma (others: eyes, hi
Higblood, Gait balance disorder,
Gastrointestinalbleeding, enlarged
etc)

Based on foregoing, there is no question at all

Enriles advanced age and ill health required s
medical attention. His confinement at the PNP
Hospital, albeit at his own instance

Determination on the mitigating circs appli

only be made in TRIAL COURT

Cited UNDHR promote right to liberty and du

provided that detainee will not be flight risk a
special humanitarian and compelling circs

LEONEN DISSENT
No gadalej by SB dont fault them for imparti
Decision Essentially BASED on ground not
argued or prayed for by Enrile
Bail special accommodation to Enrile
- ground never raised in pleadings or SB
medical condition)
- Q of fact: medical treatment
- Dont base on 1 doctors testimony
- SB did not consider med condition as
stated as ground
Privilege granted ad hoc to ONE PERSON
Usher era of truly selective justice
Undermines legitimacy of judicial system

Re doctrine on BAIL: Bail hearing is MAND

Canonical
Mandatory bail hearing is only to det amt of ba
has disciplined judges who violated SC instruc
Consti provisions regarding bail
SB correct when they dismissed Motion to
premature

viii

CPRO
Case Title

Facts

Doctrine/ Notes

Ponente Bersamin passed a final copy not

voted upon in deliberation (based it on hum
grounds)

Grant of bail based on doctors certification is n

in rules of procedure there was no cross exa
in this case must be remanded for prosec to

SB actually issued resolution to address health

enrile NOT SUBJ TO CERTIORARI
No basis for 1M bail

No binding intl law prov to compel court to rele

Effect:
No clarity on when special bail based on med
should be imposed
No guidance where dec is applicable? Plunder
No conditions discussed by majority may be
Where to file to then cancel bail? SB or SC?
Those punishable by REC PERP may be gran
due to this decision basing on humanitarian

Selective justice, Weakens admin of justice as

STANDARDS are not clear,

Mercy and compassion should never replace j

Should be treated by SB as petition for bail un

114

ix