Rule 114 Bail

REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 144
2011 Edition
Rule 114
BAIL
Q: Define Bail.
A: Under Section 1:
SECTION 1. Bail defined. – 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 hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
deposit, or recognizance. (1a)
Ano ba yang bail? Pyansa! As a general rule, once a case is filed in court and there is probable cause, the
judge will issue a warrant. So sa presohan ka. Paano yan because you are still presumed innocent? Ang tawag
diyan is preventive detention. That is why if you are convicted, that is already credited as advanced service under
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
But that will be too tedious. You are already detained, and you are still presumed innocent. The remedy is
you apply for bail – you post bail – because bail is, as a rule, a constitutional right.
Q: And what is the primary purpose of bail?

A: American jurisprudence says the purpose of bail is (a) to combine the administration of criminal justice
with the convenience of a person accused but not yet proven guilty; (b) to relieve the accused of imprisonment,
and the State of burden of keeping him, pending trial. (6 Am. Jur. 61)
Can you imagine without the provision on bail? There will be thousands of people who are already in jail and
all at the expense of the government. So, we have to combine these two – the convenience of the accused and
the convenience of the State.
Now, let us go to some political law basic questions: When there is invasion or rebellion, the Constitution
authorizes the Commander-In-Chief to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. You can be arrested on
suspicion that you are engaged in rebellion even if there is no warrant and there is no case.
Q: Are you entitled to bail? Does the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also carry with
it the suspension of the right to bail?
A: That issue bugged the Supreme Court several times prior to the 1987 Constitution where the SC gave
conflicting answers.
In the case of NAVA vs. GATMAITAN, (90 Phil. 172) the SC said, Yes, he is entitled to bail once the case has
been filed in court. At least 5 out of 9 justices said that. Very close fight! Once the case is filed in court, the right
to bail can be availed of. So, the right to bail is different from the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
But when that issue came out during the martial law regime, the SC gave a different answer eh. So, that issue
came out again in the case of BUSCAYNO vs. MILITARY COMMISSION (109 SCRA 273), GARCIA-PADILLA vs. ENRILE
(121 SCRA 472). Is there a right to bail when the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended? Ang sabi ng
Supreme Court, NO, because the government’s campaign to suppress rebellion might be ineffective. Captured
rebels, would no doubt rejoin their comrades in the field and jeopardize the success of the government efforts to
end the rebellion. That sounds logical. Just imagine, why are you suspending the privilege of the writ? To arrest
suspected rebels. Pag naaresto, and then entitled to bail, balik na naman sila sa mga kasama nila! Anong klaseng
campaign ito? That is the reasoning in the case of Buscayno and Ponce Enrile.
I think that debate is already moot and academic. There is now a direct provision in the Constitution, Article 3
Section 13 which says that the right to bail exists and is not suspended by the suspension of the privilege.
Talagang settled na.
LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
2011 Edition
Another interesting case on bail. These are the cases that cropped up after the 1989 coup d’ etat attempt
against Cory Aquino because some of the RAM suspects were detained. Many of them were detained because of
court martial charges. They were charged for violating military law pero nakakulong sila. Some of them applied
for bail.
Q: Are the same military officers facing charges before a court martial entitled to bail?
A: In COMMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA (200 SCRA 80) the SC said: NO, “the right to bail has traditionally not been
recognized and it is not available in the military as an exception to the general rule as embodied in the Bill of
Rights.” There is no such thing as bail in the military. So, that’s an exception to the general rule. “The right to
speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.”
The dissenter in the case of Commendador is Abraham Sarmiento. Diyan mo makikita pagiging humanitarian
lawyer niya. During the time of Marcos, he hates the military. But he was the one who said that they are entitled
to bail because sabi niya, “according to the majority the right to bail has traditionally hot been recognized in the
military. I’ve been looking in the bill of rights and I cannot find that exception. Where did the majority get that?
You mean to tell me the military before are not citizens of the Philippines anymore?” According to Isagani Cruz
who is the ponente in that case, “They are not entitled to bail as a matter of tradition in the military!” Sarmiento:
“No! We are a government of laws, not a government of traditions.” Mag-isa lang siya, wala siyang nagawa!
Purpose and Nature of Bail (From Atty. Europa’s Notes)
PADERANGA V. COURT OF APPEALS 247 SCRA 741 (1995)

reiterated in GO, ET AL. V. JUDGE BENJAMIN A. BONGOLAN
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1464, 26 July 1999
HELD: “Section 13, Article III of the Constitution lays down the rule that before conviction, all
indictees shall be allowed bail, except only those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. In pursuance thereof, Section 4
of Rule 114, as amended, now provides that all persons in custody shall, before
conviction by a regional trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right. The right to bail,
which may be waived considering its personal nature and which, to repeat, arises from
the time one is placed in the custody of the law, springs from the presumption of
innocence accorded every accused upon whom should not be inflicted incarceration at
the outset since after the trial he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be
established beyond reasonable doubt.”
The person seeking to be admitted to bail must first be in the CUSTODY OF THE LAW
MANIGBAS VS. LUNA, 98 Phil. 466 [1956]

NECITO C. HILARIO VS. JULIAN C. OCAMPO III, ADM. CASE No. 3066 (December 3, 2001)
HELD: “Bail is defined as the "security given for the release of a person in custody of the law."
By its definition, bail requires that a person must first be arrested or deprived of liberty
before it can be availed of: Thus, although the posting thereof is tantamount to
submission to the jurisdiction of the court, it presupposes that the accused is under
detention or in the custody of law. Indeed, it would be absurd and incongruous to grant
bail to one who is free. In this case, respondent deemed it appropriate for the accused
to file the corresponding bail bonds, even when the latter had not yet been arrested or
placed under custody.”
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
GUILLERMA DELOS SANTOS-REYES VS. JUDGE CAMILO O. MONTESA

Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-983 (August 7, 1995)
HELD: “From the above recitals of the factual and procedural antecedents of the criminal
cases before the trial court, it is obvious that the accused filed their petitions to grant
bail and to reduce bail, motion to reinstate petition to grant bail and urgent motion to
quash warrants of arrests before the court acquired jurisdiction over their persons
either through the effective service and enforcement of the warrants of arrest or their
voluntary surrender, i.e., before they were placed in the custody of the law or
otherwise deprived of their liberty. Such being so, the trial court, initially, denied
correctly the petition for grant of bail but subsequently disregarded law and
jurisprudence when it favorably acted on the motion to reinstate the petition for grant
of bail and set the motion for hearing on 6 April 1991, directing, for that purpose the
Department of Justice and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to forward to it the
records of the preliminary investigation. In this jurisdiction it is settled that a person
applying for bail should be in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty
xxxx”
PROBLEM: Ruby is charged with a capital crime. So, no bail. Ayaw mag-surrender. Gusto niya bail muna bago
surrender. (Anyway, even if you are charged with a capital crime, you can file a petition for bail.) But he got a
lawyer and the lawyer filed a petition for bail in his behalf.
Q: In this case, can Ruby apply for bail?

A: NO. The SC said, We cannot entertain the petition for bail because Ruby is not in custody! Simple: what is
the definition of bail? “Security given for the release of a person in custody of law.” You are even at large then
you’re asking for bail? Surrender first bago ka makahingi ng bail. (Marigbasa vs. Luna, 98 Phil. 466; Feliciano vs.
Pasicolan, July 31, 1961)
Q: What do you mean by “in custody of law”?

A: “In custody of law” may mean
1. physical or actual custody; or
2. constructive custody. (Paderanga vs. CA, 247 SCRA 41)
PADERANGA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

247 SCRA 417
FACTS: This case originated in CDO. The accused was charged of murder – non-bailable. So,
ayaw niyang magpahuli. Pero actually, he wants to face the case pero dapat lang may
bail. Pero problema niya how can he file a petition for bail when you are not even in
custody? (In custody, you have to surrender or you must be arrested. Kaya nga ayaw
niya yun eh. As much as possible, pag-surrender niya, meron ng bail. Then what
happened?) He entered the hospital, may sakit daw and then his lawyer filed a petition
for bail before the RTC, “We are appearing for the accused for his petition for bail. We
would like to manifest that he is right now in the hospital. Will you please consider him
already in the custody of the court?” Sabi ng court, “OK, let’s proceed.”
ISSUE: Is the accused already in custody? Can the court entertain his petition for bail even if
he was not arrested, and the lawyer said he was in the hospital and the court never
bothered to ask a policeman to go there, check, verify, bantayan mo yung hospital until
he gets well?
HELD: YES, he is already in the CONSTRUCTIVE custody of the law. “It may be conceded that
he had indeed filed his motion for admission to bail before he was actually and
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
physically placed under arrest. He may, however, at that point and in the factual
ambience thereof, be considered as being constructively and legally under custody.
Thus, in the likewise peculiar circumstances which attended the filing of his bail
application with the trial court, for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be
deemed to have voluntarily submitted his person to the custody of the law and,
necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court which thereafter granted bail as prayed
for. The undeniable fact is that Paderanga was by then in the constructive custody of
the law.
Bail in Extradition
GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG vs. OLALIA
April 19, 2007
FACTS: Juan Muñoz was charged before a Hong Kong Court with several counts of offenses in
violation of Hong Kong laws. When he was arrested in the Philippines, the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region filed a petition for his extradition. Judge Olalia allowed
Muñoz to post bail at P750,000. Records show that Muñoz had been detained for over
2 years without having been convicted of any crime when the bail was granted. HK
questioned the grant of bail.
ISSUE: In extradition proceedings may a potential extraditee be granted bail while the
extradition proceedings are pending?
HELD: Yes, if he is not a flight risk. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, there is no
justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise,
considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation
cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both
are administrative proceeding where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is
not in issue. The case was REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether Muñoz is
entitled to bail on the basis of “clear and convincing evidence.”
Q: What are the types of bail?

A: There are four (4) types of bail under Section 1:
1. Corporate Surety
Refers to the type of bail, similar to an insurance contract whereby a bonding company will issue a bond in
the amount fixed by the court which will be forfeited if the bonding company fails in its obligation to warrant
compliance with the conditions of bail.
2. Property Bond
Refers to a situation where property is put up by the accused or somebody else to warrant compliance with
the conditions of bail. If such conditions are violated, the said property will be sold at public auction and the
proceeds thereof, up to the amount of bail fixed by the court will be forfeited in favor of the government.
3. Cash Bond
Refers to the type of bail whereby the accused or somebody else will actually deposit the amount fixed by the
court as bail to warrant compliance with the conditions of bail. If these conditions are violated, the money can be
forfeited.
4. Recognizance
Refers to the type of bail where a person is released in his own custody or to the custody of a responsible
person. This type of bail is allowable only in the cases when specific provisions of the law or the rules allow it.
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
SEC. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. – All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all
stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the
case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules;
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking
and the conditions required by this section. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months
showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the bail. (2a)
Q: So, for example in the MTC, you are arrested, natalo ka, you will appeal. How about pag-appeal mo sa RTC,
what will happen to your bail?
A: Tuloy-tuloy pa rin yan because under paragraph [a], your bail is effective up to the RTC.
Q: Another example: na-convict ka sa RTC and you want to go to the CA, are you still entitled to bail?
A: The answer is MAYBE. This is one instance where bail is discretionary.
Q: But assuming that the court will say, “OK, you are entitled to bail on appeal.” What happens now to your
bail?
A: The GENERAL RULE is you get another bail bond because your bail is only up to the level of the RTC. This is
back to the 1964 rules. In the 85 Rules, iba naman – the bail is tuloy-tuloy up to the CA. Now, RTC level lang. You
have to ask for another bail bond if you want to go further to the CA. So, it’s back to the 64 rules ‘no?
Q: Paragraph [b] – you will appear before the proper court whenever required by the court or these rules.
Normally, when is a person required by the court to appear?
A: Generally, ARRAIGNMENT or PROMULGATION lalo na pag convicted ka. But there are others for example,
let’s read Rule 115 Section 1 [c]:
“(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment
to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. x x x x x x”
That is one instance where the court may require his presence. His presence there is not a privilege but an
obligation.
Q: Now supposed you failed to appear in court without justification. Like for example, you escaped, you
jumped bail and disappeared? What will happen to the case?
A: Tuloy pa rin according to paragraph [c] because that would be a waiver of your right.
Q: Anong tawag niyan?

A: TRIAL IN ABSENTIA pursuant to Section 14, 2nd paragraph, Article 2 of the Constitution.
Q: A bail bond required the bondsmen to pay the fine of the accused, in addition to the usual condition. Is this
additional condition valid?
A: NO. The additional condition is void because it made the obligation of the bondsmen more onerous, in
violation of the constitutional provision that no excessive bail shall be required may not impose additional
conditions because it might prevent or render it impossible for the accused to secure his liberty during the trial.
(Bandoy vs. CFI of Laguna, 14 Phil. 620)
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
Q: A condition in a bail bond states that the sureties do not undertake to deliver the person of the accused if
the reading of the sentence is postponed to a later date, nor do they consent to such extension. Is this condition
valid?
A: YES, the condition is valid, because it is not contrary to law or public policy, and, besides, it lightens the
obligation of the bondsmen, which is allowable. Conditions restricting liability on the bond when accepted by the
court and not contrary to public policy are valid. (People vs. Wong Pun, 48 Phil. 713)
The Court has the right to restrict the travel of the accused
RICARDO MANOTOC, JR. VS. COURT OF APPEALS 142 SCRA 149 (May 30, 1986)
RICARDO C. SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS 195 SCRA 760 (1991)
IMELDA MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 247 SCRA 127 (1995)
HELD: “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. As
we have held in People v. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935). ". . . the result of the
obligation assumed by appellee (surety) to hold the accused amenable at all times to
the orders and processes of the lower court, was to prohibit said accused from leaving
the jurisdiction of the Philippines, because, otherwise, said orders and processes will be
nugatory, and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they issued does
not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of
said jurisdiction." Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without
sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.”
SEC. 3. No release or transfer except on court order or bail. – No person under detention by legal process
shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to bail. (3a)
ORBE VS. DIGANDANG

Sept. 3, 2009
FACTS: Abdulsalam Indag and Baida Manabilang were arrested for violation of RA 9165, The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 but was released from custody of the OIC Provincial
Warden Laman Malikol on the basis of a Custody Receipt signed by the respondent,
Marcos U. Digandang, a process server of the RTC Cotabato City.
ISSUE: WON the release was valid?
HELD: No, the release of an accused charged with a non-bailable offense on the basis merely
of a Custody Receipt signed by a process server is a clear violation of Sec. 3, Rule 114 –
the release must be by order of the court.
Now, we go to these important issues on bail:

1. When bail is a matter of right;
2. When bail is discretionary; and
3. When bail is not available.
As a general rule, bail is a matter of right. That is a constitutional right. And Section 4 tells us what the
instances are when bail is a matter of right.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. – 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 punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. (4a)
Q: So you are charged in the MTC; no conviction yet. So you are still an innocent. Are you entitled to bail?
A: Yes, as a matter of right.
Q: Suppose you have been convicted already, found guilty by the MTC, maybe sentenced to 2 years
imprisonment but you would like to appeal to the RTC. While your appeal is going on, can you still post bail?
A: YES. Whether it is before or after conviction by the MTC, bail is a matter of right.
Q: suppose you are charged in the RTC, for example homicide punishable by reclusion temporal, are you entitled
to bail?
A: YES, it is also a matter of right. For as long as the prescribed penalty is not life imprisonment, perpetua or
death, it is a matter of right. So, up to reclusion temporal it is a matter of right.
So based on the provision of law, let us try to outline –

Q: When is bail a matter of right?
A: Bail is a matter of right –
1. Before conviction by the MTC, MTC, or MCTC (Section 4 [a]);

2. After conviction by the MTC (Section 4 [a]);
3. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment (Section 4 [b])
4. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death reclusion or life imprisonment when
evidence of guilt is not strong. (People vs. Donato, infra)
Under the law, when a person charged in court for example murder, non-bailable man yan ba. What is the
procedure under Section 8 if he wants to post bail? He must file an application or petition for bail. And that is
when the prosecution will have to present evidence immediately to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong.
Q: Suppose after hearing for the petition for bail, the court is convinced that the evidence of guilt is not
strong and the court said so, what happens now to bail?
A: Bail becomes a matter of right. (People vs. Donato, 198 SCRA 130)
PEOPLE vs. DONATO

198 SCRA 130
HELD: “If the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
bail becomes a matter of discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong.
The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is
strong. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also
becomes a matter of right.”
SAN MIGUEL VS. JUDGE MACEDA

April 4, 2007
FACTS: Edwardo San Miguel was charged with violation of Sec. 15, Art. III of RA 6425 punishable
by prision correctional then jumped bail. His bail bond of P60,000 was cancelled and a
new one was issued for P120K. Respondent Judge Maceda issued an order granting the
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
State prosecutor’s Motion to Cancel Recommended Bail on the ground that accused may
flee from prosecution.
ISSUE: WON the order deprived the complainant of his right to bail?
HELD: Yes. Where bail is a matter of right and prior absconding and forfeiture is not excepted
from such right, bail must be allowed irrespective of such circumstances. The existence
of a high degree of probability that the defendant is will abscond confers upon the court
no greater discretion than to increase the bond that would assure his presence when
wanted. In this case, the prosecutor failed to adduce evidence that there is a high
probability of the accused jumping bail that would warrant the cancellation of the bail
bond. Thus, the judge may only increase the amount of bail and not cancel it.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION
Q: When is bail discretionary? Meaning, the court may grant bail or may not grant bail.
A: Section 5:
SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary. – Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The
application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal,
provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial
court conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application
for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
xxxx
Q: Supposed you are charged with homicide. The maximum penalty there is temporal. You are convicted. The
court found you guilty of homicide. It sentenced you to 20 years imprisonment and you would like to appeal. Can
you ask for bail?
A: YES.
Q: What will the court do?

A: The court may or may not grant. Yan ang discretion.
Now, the second sentence is new:

The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court.(Section 5, first paragraph,
second sentence)
This is a reversal of a ruling in the case of
OMOSA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

266 SCRA 281 [January 16, 1997]
FACTS: The court convicted the accused for homicide. So temporal. The accused said: “Your
honor, we intend to appeal this case but may we be asked to post bail while the appeal
is going on. The court said, “Granted! [discretionary man!]. We will fix your bail at
P50,000.” Two days before, the accused filed a notice of appeal. After filing the notice
of appeal, he applied for bail which was approved by the court.
ISSUE: Can the court approve the bail?
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
HELD: NO, because when the accused filed his notice of appeal, from that very moment the
court has lost jurisdiction over the case. Dapat, inuna muna yung approval of bail bago
mag-file ng notice of appeal. When the court fixed the bail, he has must not yet filed his
notice of appeal, so the court has the power to fix the bail. The trouble is he
immediately filed a notice of appeal bago niya ging-post ang bail. So the court has no
more jurisdiction to approve the bail. It should have been approved by the Court of
Appeals.
That is the ruling in the Omosa. Obviously, the SC wanted to change it. The application for bail may still be
filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice – that is a modification of the Omosa ruling –
Puwede, provided it has not transmitted the original record. Based on the Omosa ruling, once the notice of
appeal is filed, the trial court has no more jurisdiction to act on the application for bail.
But NOW under the NEW RULES, puwede pa even if there is already a notice of appeal on the condition that
the records are still with the RTC. If the records are already in the appellate court, you better apply for bail before
the Court of Appeals.
Now the next sentence
However, if the decision of the trial court conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from
non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
(Section 5, first paragraph, last sentence)
This is also a recognition and modification of the ruling of Omosa vs. CA, supra.
In the case of Omosa, the accused was charged with murder – non-bailable. But after the trial the court
convicted him only for homicide, a lesser offense. And homicide is bailable – discretionary in the court. If he was
convicted for murder, wala talagang pag-asa. But he was convicted for homicide. So he applied for bail. And the
court granted the bail. And the SC said the trial court should not grant bail because the accused is appealing. For
all you know on appeal, the appellate court may reinstate the original charge for murder because when you
appeal, the whole case is open for review. So, because of the possibility that the penalty of murder would be
imposed, then there should be no bail. That was the ruling of Omosa vs. CA.
Now, of course it is now modified in the sense that, bail could be granted in that situation because he was
charged with a non-bailable offense but found guilty of bailable offense. However, if there is any court which
should grant the bail, it should be the CA and not the trial court. So these are new provisions which were
somehow taken from the ruling in Omosa which is also now modified. That is the history of that provision.
Alright. Now let us go to the second paragraph:

xxxx
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty
during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman. (Section 5)
xxxx
That is more or less an exception to Section 2[a] that we already discussed. When you are charged in the RTC
and you post bail, the bail is good up to when? The bail is only valid in the RTC. If you want to appeal, and the
court grants bail on appeal, you have to post another bail.
But this provision grants the court the authority to say, “Alright, your bail which you posted here will
continue.” Nasa court yan kung gustong ipatuloy. Puwede rin yun. Ok. We will continue, subject to the consent of
the bondsman. That is now the condition. The bondsman may say, “Delikado na ito, baka ma-convict na ito.
Mamaya baka lumayas na ito at tumakbo, patay na ako. Ako ang magbabayad.”
Alright, let us go now to the next sentence:
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
xxxx
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be
denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accuse, of the
following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated
by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions
of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional
Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. (5a)
Alright. Let us go back to the basic:
What is the jurisdiction of the RTC? The penalty is 6 years and 1 day up to death.
If the penalty is prision mayor to reclusion temporal [6 yrs and 1 day to 20 years] yan, sa phrase na yan, bail
could be granted on appeal but it is discretionary. However, even if the bail is granted the prosecution tells the
court, “Judge, this guy was found guilty of homicide and you grant bail. Iba pala ito eh because he is a recidivist, or
etc or any of the conditions mentioned in [a] – [e],” the court will now cancel the bail.
So bail is discretionary provided it will not fall under [a], [b], [c], [d], or [e]. You are a recidivist; you are
habitual delinquent; you have previously escaped from a confinement; you have committed an offense while
under probation, parole or conditional pardon; or when the circumstances of the case indicates the probability of
flight (there is a risk ba!); or there is an undue risk that you might commit another crime during the pendency of
the appeal, the court will not grant the bail. The discretion there will not be in your favor. If the court has already
granted, the bail will be cancelled. Take note of that.
Q: When is bail discretionary?

A: Based on that provision, after conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, provided the case does not fall under Section 5, third paragraph [a]-[e] of the same
law because once the case falls under any of these, no bail even if it is a matter of discretion.
Take note of the second instance – bail as a matter of discretion. The first instance is when bail is a matter of
right – Section 4. When is bail discretion – Section 5. Yung Section 4, walang problema, that is absolute even if
you are a recidivist.
CASE: The accused was charged with homicide, there was no conviction yet. And then bail. He jumped bail –
lumayas! But he was arrested again. When arrested apply na naman for bail. Binigyan na naman ng bail. After a
few months, layas na naman. He escaped again. Nahuli na naman. And then he applied for bail for the third time.
This time, sabi ng judge, “Ayaw ko na. Because of your character, di na puwede for jumping bail twice already. I will
not grant you bail.” And he questioned it before the court. Is the denial of bail correct because of the past record
of the accused?
The SC said NO because the bail is a matter of right. He falls under Section 4 there. Wala pang conviction.
Even if he jumps bail 100 times you cannot deny him bail for as long as the crime is not punishable by perpetua to
death. (Sy Guan vs. Amparo, 79 Phil. 670; People vs. Alano, 81 Phil. 19)
Q: What is the remedy to this kind of accused? Remedy?

A: Taasan mo ang bail. So magkano bail mo dati? P30,000? Alright, ngayon P70,000 na! Tingnan natin kung
tatakbo pa yan. Previous abscondence or escape is not a ground for the denial of the bail; it merely gives the court
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
discretion to increase the amount of the bond as will reasonably tend to assure the presence of the accused. (Sy
Guan vs. Amparo, 79 Phil. 670; People vs. Alano, 81 Phil. 19)
Now, I am amused by what happened in Section 5. Did you hear the promulgation of the Robillo case one
month ago? I don’t know how many were convicted. I think 3 or more were convicted. One of them is a
radioman. I know where he hangs around. One day before the promulgation, he is no longer hanging around. He
disappeared already, na-amoy na niya siguro. Some were military men.
They were convicted. At least one of them was acquitted. Many were convicted. The penalty was reclusion
perpetua. And after the trial everybody left, including the convicted accused. I was visiting the jail the following
day. The warden was telling me, “What happened to this case? Since yesterday we were expecting the convicted
person to be brought here. Convicted eh.”
So I asked the fiscal kung anong nangyari dyan because from what we know, if you are found guilty for
murder, for example, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua on the spot, you will be sent to jail. “Teka muna! Hindi
pa final yung conviction!” Never mind! You can appeal but you are now detained indefinitely. Wala nang labas
labas ‘yan. From the court room, diretso ka na sa jail. “But the judgment is not yet final?” But there’s already the
judgment of conviction. Even when there’s still no conviction, when the evidence of guilt is strong, your bail will
be denied. Even in the middle or at the start of the case, if the evidence of guilt is strong, bail will be denied lalo
na kung capital punishment. How much more here when there is already a judgment of conviction?! Logic! simple
logic.
And the branch clerk of court, I think you know her – Atty. Morales. She called me up in the office. Sabi niya,
“Anong nangyari dito? di ba walang bail yan?”. Sabi ko “Yes”. I wonder bakit walang bail. Bakit hindi ikinancel?
Kailangan daw i-cancel pa ang bail. That was what the judge said. Sabi ko, NO! The bail is automatically cancelled.
That is what I said so.
Sabi niya (clerk of court), “I was pointing to the judge Section 5. Eh sabi niya (judge), ‘No. Bail is discretionary
because of this paragraph 3 – if the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding 6 years the
accused should be denied bail or bail should be cancelled upon showing by the prosecution with notice of the
accused of the following. Therefore, bail could be granted because the penalty is exceeding 6 years.’”
That implies that bail is discretionary because in Section 5, the heading is “Bail, when discretionary” so hindi
cancelled. I said, “Tingnan mo ang opening paragraph of Section 5 – upon conviction of the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, perpetua or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. So itong paragraph 3, upon
6 years but less than perpetua. So up to 20 years. We have to connect paragraph 3 with the first paragraph. Sabi
niya (clerk of court), “This is what I know eh. Since I am new in this job. I cannot insist.” Dean I: “Sabihin mo sa
judge na nagkamali sya. Ako ang nagsabi.” And after 2 days, pinacancel niya (judge).
I’ve talked that judge. He was my friend personally. When I saw him sabi ko nagkamali ka man dun ba. Dapat
yun, on the spot. That’s why everybody is wondering bakit nakaganun yun. Well, that was his first experience
with a capital heinous crime. Dito siya naiiba eh. He’s not used to trying this kind.
Yung sasabihin mong bail may continue – that assumes that the penalty is above 6 years but not more than
20 years. Pag naging perpetua, wala na. Yung wala pang conviction bail could be denied, lalo na pag may
conviction na! The evidence of guilt is now strong! It’s simple logic. That is why this provision will be tricky if we
do not know how to interpret this rule.
RUFINA CHUA V. CA AND CHIOK

April 12, 2007
FACTS: Accused was convicted of estafa and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 12-20 years
for which he was absent during its promulgation. The trial court ordered the
cancellation of his bail and ordered his appearance before the court within 5 days. For
failure to appear, the court issued a warrant for his arrest to which the CA issued a writ
of preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: WON the bail bond of the accused should be cancelled?
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
HELD: Yes. Accused has no right to be freed on bail pending his appeal from the trial court’s
judgment since he has been sentenced to imprisonment exceeding 6 years which
justifies the cancellation of his bail pursuant to the third paragraph of Sec. 5 (b), (d) and
(e) of Rule 114. Also his inexcusable non-appearance during the promulgation of
judgment violated the condition of his bail and showed the probability that he might
flee or commit another crime while released on bail.
OCA V. JUDGE LORENZO

Dec. 23, 2008
FACTS: Respondent judge released on bail 5 Chinese nationals arrested while manufacturing
shabu, citing the prosecution’s inability to prove their guilt with strong evidence due to
the non-appearance of the prosecution’s witness.
ISSUE: WON the release was valid?
HELD: No. It would have been correct if only he had paid enough attention to the factors why
the prosecution were not able to establish that the evidence of guilt is strong. Judge
should have looked into the reasons for the non-appearance of the witness.
PEOPLE V. PLAZA
Oct. 2, 2009
FACTS: People assail the decision granting bail to Plaza, who was indicted for murder, without
the conduct of mandatory hearing to determine WON the prosecution’s evidence was
strong.
ISSUE: WON a summary hearing was needed to determine whether the accused is entitled to
bail?
HELD: The exercise by the trial court of its discretionary power to grant bail to an accused
charged with a capital offense, depends on whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
Thus, when bail is discretionary, a hearing should first be conducted to determine the
existence of strong evidence against the accused. In this particular case there was no
need for such hearing since the evidence has already been presented by the
prosecution.
LEVISTE V. CA
March 17, 2010
FACTS: Leviste was convicted by the RTC of Makati for homicide and sentence to 6 yrs. 1 day to
12 yrs, He appealed to the CA, and pending appeal he applied for bail pending appeal
which was denied. Accused claims that in the absence of any of the circumstances in
Sec. 5 Par. 3 of Rule 114 an application for bail by an appellant sentenced by the RTC to a
penalty of more than 6 yrs imprisonment should automatically be granted.
ISSUE: WON when bail is discretionary it should be automatically granted absent any
circumstances mentioned in Sec. 5 Par. 3 of Rule 114?
HELD: No. Sec. 5 Par. 3 of Rule 114 applies to 2 scenarios where the penalty imposed on the
appellant applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding 6 years. The 1st deals with the
circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph not present. The 2nd scenario
contemplates the existence of at least one of the said circumstances.
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
In the 1st situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion, which means that, if
none of the circumstances is present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant or
deny bail and it may consider all relevant circumstances, other than those mentioned in
Sec. 5 Par. 3 Rule 114, including the demands of equity and justice; on the basis thereof,
it may either allow or disallow bail.
In the 2nd situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion, that is, to
carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists and if
does, it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Nonetheless,
a finding that none of the said circumstances is present will not automatically result in
the grant of bail. Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent
sound discretion approach.
DIPATUAN V. JUDGE MANGOTARA

April 23, 2010
FACTS: Respondent judge issued a decision which found both accused guilty of murder and
sentenced them to imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. He also issued a decision
increasing their bail bond from P75K to P200K.
ISSUE: WON the decision to increase the bail was proper?
HELD: No. In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death, the accused has no right to
bail when the evidence of guilt is strong. Thus, the accused having been sentenced to
reclusion perpetua, the bail should have been cancelled instead of increased.
Summary:
WHEN BAIL IS
Regional Trial Court Matter of Right Matter of When Denied
1. Prision Mayor –  Discretion After conviction if any of
Reclusion Temporal Before conviction After conviction 5 circumstances exists
2. Reclusion Perpetua If evidence of guilt Before Conviction
-Death NOT STRONG If Evidence of guilt is
Before Conviction STRONG
To Determine WON the evidence of guilt is STRONG there must be a hearing, so that the prosecution can
present their evidence.
1. If evidence of guilt is STRONG – judge should DENY bail

2. If evidence of guilt is NOT STRONG – judge should GRANT bail
The judge only has the discretion to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not.
WHEN BAIL IS DENIED
SEC. 6. Capital offense defined. – A capital offense is an offense which, under the law existing at the time
of its commission and of the application for admission to bail, may be punished with death. (6a)
Take note that the crime is punishable by DEATH not only at the time of its commission but also at the time
of the application for bail. The law uses the conjunction “and.” C.f. RA 7659 gives us a list of capital offenses.
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. –
No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the state of the
criminal prosecution. (7a)
This means if the accused is charged with a crime which is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, there is NO BAIL even at the start of the trial or even before judgment of conviction, provided that
the two (2) conditions are present.
“xxx regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution.” Meaning, NO BAIL before conviction. Lalo na pag
after conviction!
That’s why I told her na ipakita mo [sa judge] yung Section 7 – “xxx regardless of the state of criminal
prosecution.” You already found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to perpetua, huwag mo
sabihing ‘the evidence of guilt is not strong’! How come you convict him?! Yaan!
YAP, JR vs. CA
(June 6, 2001)
HELD: The importance attached to conviction is due to the underlying principle that bail
should be granted only where it is uncertain whether the accused is guilty or innocent,
and therefore, where that uncertainty is removed by conviction it would, generally
speaking, be absurd to admit to bail. After a person has been tried and convicted the
presumption of innocence which may be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted,
and the burden is upon the accused to show error in the conviction. From another
point of view it may be properly argued that the probability of ultimate punishment is
so enhanced by the conviction that the accused is much more likely to attempt to
escape if liberated on bail than before conviction.
VALERIO VS DELA-TORRE-YADAO
[October 10, 2007]
FACTS: An information for murder was filed among three persons, arising from the death of
Jun Valerio who was shot and killed in front of his house. An information for parricide
was also filed against the wife, Milagros. Milagros filed an application for bail claiming
that evidence of guilt against her was not strong, which RTC granted. Petitioners assert
that the killer’s plea of guilty to the charge of conspiring with Milagros in the murder of
Jun indicated strong evidence of guilt against Milagros.
ISSUE: WON Milagros is entitled to bail?
HELD: NO. Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the person is charged with a capital
offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Article
114, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, states, “No person charged
with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong, regardless
of the stage of the criminal action.”
In this case, the trial court had disregarded the glaring fact that the killer himself has
confessed to the crime and has implicated Milagros as the mastermind. When taken in
conjunction with the other evidence on record, these facts show very strongly that
Milagros may have participated as principal by inducement in the murder of Jun
Valerio. It was thus a grave error or a grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial
court to grant her application for bail. The appellate court clearly committed a
reversible error in affirming the trial court’s decision granting bail to Milagros Valerio.
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
Now, this is where lalabas yung application for bail – Section 8:
SEC. 8. Burden of proof in bail application.– At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person
who 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 evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence
presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion
of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside
the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify. (8a)
Arestado ka, nakulong ka. Under the law, what is the procedure? You file an application for bail. And once an
application for bail is filed, it is now MANDATORY for the court to conduct a hearing for the prosecution to present
evidence to prove that the guilt is strong, not guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the latter is conviction na
yan!
Ang ibig sabihin niyan, mag-sample ka lang. You present some of the witnesses but not all. Sample-an mo lang
ba. Parang preliminary injunction ba! You present some of your evidence. After that, the court will now consider
whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not strong.
Either way the court will grant bail or deny bail – tuloy pa rin ang trial! Yaan!
Q: What happens now to those witnesses? Balik na naman sila sa trial?

A: NO. Under Section 8, the evidence received during the bail hearing is automatically reproduced at the trial.
Di na kailangang ulitin pa. But you can add more witnesses and more evidence.
After that, we will now determine if the accused is guilty or not guilty. Yan na ang guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Now, [Atty.] Ceniza had a problem in Davao Oriental. He told me about it. An offense is, I think punishable by
perpetua or higher. Then pag-hingi ng bail, sabi ng prosecutor, “No objection!” Siguro sabi ng court, “No
objection? O sige, grant bail!” The prosecutor did not present evidence. Meaning, the prosecutor admits that the
evidence of guilt is not strong – wala ng hearing!
Puwede ba yan? NO! The SC said that there must be a hearing. Even if the prosecution will not want to
present evidence, the court must require a hearing. And the court cannot dispense with the hearing.
TUCAY vs. JUDGE DOMAGAS

Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1286 [March 2, 1995]
HELD: “Although the Provincial Prosecutor had interposed no objection to the grant of bail to
the accused, respondent judge should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for
hearing and diligently ascertained from the prosecution whether the latter was not
really contesting the bail application.”
“He should have called a hearing for the additional reason of taking into account the
guidelines in Rule 114 in fixing the amount of the bail. Only after satisfying himself that
the prosecution did not wish to oppose the petition for bail for justifiable cause (e.g.,
for tactical reasons) and taking into account the factors enumerated in Rule 114, sec. 6
for fixing bail should respondent judge have granted the petition for bail and ordered
the release of the accused.”
Assuming na sabi ng prosecution, “for tactical reason, we will not object.” The court will still have to conduct a
hearing – kung pila ang bail. Yaan! You still have to conduct a hearing. You look at Section 9 – Amount of bail;
guidelines. In determining how much is the bail, may mga guidelines eh! So if we will grant bail, at least we will
have to find out how much. These guidelines must be met. So you still have to conduct a hearing.
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
GUILLERMO vs. JUDGE REYES, JR.

(January 18, 1995)
HELD: “A hearing, in the nature of a summary proceeding entailing judicial determination is

required where the grant of bail is addressed to the discretion of the court. The
prosecution should be given the opportunity to adduce evidence thereat after which
the court should then spell out at least a summary or resume of the evidence on which
the order, whether it be affirmative or negative, is based. Otherwise, the order is
defective or voidable.”
Meaning, if you grant or deny bail, may court order yan. Kailangang i-summarize mo ang evidence. then you
state why you believe it is strong or it is weak. Otherwise the judge is administratively liable for not complying
with the requirement.
AURILLO vs. FRANCISCO

235 SCRA 283
HELD: In a hearing for petition for bail, affidavits will not suffice. Witnesses must be present to
testify. Affidavits will suffice only when it determines probable case for the purpose of
whether or not to issue search warrant. The judge has the personal duty of calling the
witnesses one by one to hear them for or review the evidence, i.e. affidavits presented
at the fiscal’s office.
“Verily, it was patent error for him to base his order granting bail merely on the
supporting affidavits attached to the information since those were merely intended to
establish probable cause as basis for the issuance of an arrest warrant, and not to
control his discretion to deny or grant bail in all situations”
AGUIRRE vs. JUDGE BELMONTE

(October 27, 1994)
HELD: “Even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail
of an accused, the court may still require that it answer questions in order to ascertain
not only the strength of the state's evidence but also the adequacy of the amount of
bail.”
So kahit na sabihin pa ng prosecution that it is not opposing in the application of the bail, sabi ng SC: Ah, hindi
puwedee! The court will have to ask the prosecution, why are you not opposing? Yaan! Whether to grant or deny
bail, a hearing is a 100% requisite. Otherwise the order granting or denying bail is defective, and the judge may
lose his job.
BASCO vs. RAPATALO

(March 5, 1997)
HELD: In the light of the applicable rules on bail and the jurisprudential principles just
enunciated, this Court reiterates the duties of the trial judge in case an application for
bail is filed:
(1) 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) 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 (Sections 7 and 8,
supra);
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
summary of evidence of the prosecution (Baylon v. Sison, supra);

(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of
the bailbond. (Section 19, supra). Otherwise, petition should be denied.
The above-enumerated procedure should now leave no room for doubt as to the duties
of the trial judge in cases of bail applications. So basic and fundamental is it to conduct
a hearing in connection with the grant of bail in the proper cases that it would amount
to judicial apostasy for any member of the judiciary to disclaim knowledge or
awareness thereof. A judge owes it to the public and the administration of justice to
know the law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy. He is called upon to
exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules.
There will be faith in the administration of justice only if there be a belief on the part of
litigants that the occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of a deficiency in
their grasp of legal principles.
NARCISO vs. STA. ROMANA-CRUZ

(March 17, 2000)
HELD: When the penalty prescribed by law is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a
hearing must be conducted by the trial judge before bail can be granted to the accused.
Absent such hearing, the order granting bail is void for having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion. In parricide, the accused cannot be considered an offended party
just because he was married to the deceased. In the interest of justice and in view of
the peculiar circumstances of this case, the sister of the victim may be deemed to be an
"offended party"; hence, she has the legal personality to challenge the void order of the
trial court.
Let’s go to this important question:
Q: For bail to be denied, what are the requirements?

A: Under the law:
1. the evidence of guilt is strong;
2. the crime is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
3. [based on jurisprudence] if the accused is convicted in all probability the penalty will also be death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
So you have to look at the probable penalty. This principle has been illustrated in the case of
BRAVO, JR. vs. BORJA

134 SCRA 466
FACTS: The accused was charged with murder – perpetua to death – talagang non-bailable yan.
The accused filed a petition for bail where the case is pending on the argument that
when he committed a crime, he was only 16 years old. He attached his birth certificate
in the application for bail. Sabi niya, if found guilty, the penalty is automatic one (1)
degree lower – so, temporal. The worst that will happen to him is temporal. Therefore,
bail now becomes a matter of right.
ISSUE 1: In the hearing for bail, should the court allow the presentation of evidence of mitigating
or aggravating circumstances?
HELD: NO. Bravo, Jr. is wrong. In the hearing for a petition for bail, the presentation of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances is NOT covered because if the court will
require the presentation of said circumstances, then there would be a need for a trial
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
on the merits of the case. All the court has to do after the bail hearing would be to
render a decision. That would defeat the purpose of the hearing for bail.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not Bravo, Jr. is entitled to bail.
HELD: YES. Although the presentation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is NOT
allowed, the SC said, However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that when Bravo, Jr.
committed the crime he was only 16 years old. Normally, we close our eyes, but in this
case, we cannot close it because he alleged it. As a matter of fact, his birth certificate
was attached to this petition and the prosecution DID NOT challenge his minority. Since
the plea of minority is already before us and the accused did not challenge it, we
cannot close our eyes to the fact that even if we find him guilty, the penalty to be
imposed would not be reclusion perpetua or death but lower. Since the probable
penalty is not death or perpetua, then he is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Q: So what are the principle points to remember in the case of Bravo, Jr?
A: The following:
1. that in a petition for bail there should be no evidence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. It
should not be presented in a petition for bail. This should be presented during the trial;
2. however, despite the fact that it should not be presented, if it is alleged and presented there and the
prosecution did not dispute it, the court should consider it just the same; and
3. even if the accused is charged with a crime punishable by death, perpetua or life imprisonment and the
evidence of guilt is strong, if the probable imposable penalty is less than perpetua, bail becomes a matter of right.
PEOPLE vs. CALO

186 SCRA 620 [1990]
FACTS: Three (3) people were accused of murder for the death of the victim. The prosecution
recommended no bail. After a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is
strong, the trial court issued the order granting bail. The son of the victim went to the
SC questioning the order granting the bail of the accused.
ISSUE: Whether or not the son of the victim has sufficient legal personality to question the
order granting bail? (Normally, if there is anyone who should question it, it should be
the Solicitor General representing the people of the Philippines)
HELD: While the rule is, only the Solicitor General may represent the People or the State in
criminal proceedings pending in this Court and the Court of Appeals, the ends of
substantial justice would be better served, and the issues in this action could be
determined in a more just, speedy and inexpensive manner, by entertaining the
petition at bar. As an offended party in a criminal case, private petitioner has sufficient
personality and a valid grievance against the judge's order granting bail to the alleged
murderers of his (private petitioner's) father.
So, the case of Calo was considered an exception because he is also an aggrieved party – the aggrieved
parties are the People and the family of the victim. So in this case, the son is also an aggrieved party.
GO vs. JUDGE BONGOLAN

(July 26, 1999)
FACTS: An information was filed against Balmores, et al charging them with the kidnapping of
Samuel Go. The case was presided by Judge Bongolan. Since kidnapping with ransom
is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death, the prosecution recommended no bail
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
for the provisional liberty of the accused. When trial commenced, the prosecution
panel presented its witnesses. After their testimonies, accused Balmores filed a Motion
for Amendment of the Information and the Fixing of the Bail.” “Motion for Amendment
of the Informaton” was denied. The prosecution opposed the Motion to Bail. Judge
Bongolan granted the applications for bail. Before the prosecution could submit a
Motion for Reconsideration, the accused were already released. Judge Benesa was the
one who granted the bail, as Judge Bongolan was in the hospital. Motion for
Reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the approval of bail bond was valid or regular
HELD: A bail hearing is mandatory to give prosecution reasonable opportunity to oppose the
application by showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The prosecution was caught off
guard in the regular hearing. Prosecution must be given an opportunity to present its
evidence within a reasonable time. If the prosecution is denied such an opportunity,
there would be a violation of procedural due process. A bail application does not only
involve the right of the accused to temporary liberty, but likewise the right of the state
to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements.
So based on what we have gone so far, let us now try to summarize the instances under Rule 114 where bail is
a matter of right, discretion, or is denied.
Q: When is bail a MATTER OF RIGHT:
A: Bail is a matter of right –
1. Before conviction by the MTC, MTC, or MCTC;
2. After conviction by the MTC;
3. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; and
4. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death reclusion or life imprisonment when
evidence of guilt is not strong. This is because once the court finds that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail
becomes a matter of right.
Q: When is bail DISCRETIONARY?

A: Bail is discretionary after conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment provided, the case does not fall under the 3rd paragraph of Section 5 [a] – [e].
Q: When shall bail be DENIED?

A: The bail shall be denied under the following instances:
1. before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
when the evidence of guilt is strong;
2. after conviction by the RTC and the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. He
can appeal but in the meantime, there is no bail; and
3. after conviction by the RTC where the penalty imposed is imprisonment exceeding 6 years but no more
than 20 years, and the case falls under Section 5 [a] – [e].
So, recidivist, or you escaped from confinement, or there is undue risk, etc. ayan! Pagnahulog ka diyan, bail
shall not be granted. And this is where the question of Ms. Masepequeña will come in:
Q:SEC.
Mr. 9. Amount
Peloton wasofcharged
bail; guidelines. – The
with a crime judge whobyissued
punishable the warrant
reclusion temporal. orHegranted the application
was convicted but theshall fix
penalty
is a6 reasonable
years or lessamount of bailthere
(for instance, considering primarily,
are mitigating but not limited
circumstances) andto,hethe following
wants factors:
to appeal to the CA. Is it a matter
of right(a)orFinancial
a matter liability of the accused to give bail;
of discretion?
A:(b)
MyNature
view is,andit circumstance
is a matter ofofdiscretion
the offense; but even if these circumstances (recidivist, etc.) still bail can be
granted. (c) That
Penalty foreffect.
is the the offense charged;
Whereas, if the penalty is 6 years 1 day to 20 years and he is a recidivist, etc., bail shall
not be(d) Character
granted. But ifand
it isreputation of or
only 6 years theless,
accused;
it may be granted although it is not a matter of right.
(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; LAKAS ATENISTA
(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. (9a)
2011 Edition
Q: When bail shall be granted, how much is the amount of it?

A: There are guidelines under Section 9 – marami eh! Of course one of the factors is paragraph [c] – penalty
for the offense charged. That’s why the DOJ has guidelines eh na kapag ganito ang penalty, ganito ang i-
recommend mo. But that is only one of the factors. The court can either follow the recommendation or raise it or
lower it because aside from that, marami pa eh like financial ability of the accused, character or reputation of the
accused, etc. And all these guidelines where taken from the ruling in the case of VILLASEÑOR VS. ABANO (21 SCRA
312)
VICTORY LINER vs. BELLOSILLO
(March 10, 2004)
HELD: De la Cruz and Serrano were both charged with the offense of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. Although permanently employed as drivers of VLI, it could not be
said that each was capable of posting a cash bail bond of P50,000 and P350,000,
respectively. In fixing such amounts, the respondent apparently did not take into
account the gravity of the offense charged and the financial capability of the accused.
He thereby willfully disregarded the guidelines under Section 9, Rule 114 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, and the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of the DOJ. In
effect, he violated the constitutional right of the accused to bail, as well as the
prohibition against excessive bail. While cash bail is authorized under our rules, the
option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily belongs to the accused, as can
be gleaned from the language of Section 14, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, as amended.
Q: What do you mean by corporate surety?

A: Section 10:
SEC. 10. 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. (10a)
SEC. 11. Property bond, how posted. – 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 Registry of Deeds
if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the space provided therefore, 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.
SEC 12. the
Within Qualifications
same period,of sureties in property
the accused bond.to– the
shall submit Thecourt
qualifications of sureties
his compliance and in
hisafailure
property bond
to do so
shall be as follows:
shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and detention. (11a)
(a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines;
(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of undertaking;
(c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than that expressed in the
undertaking but the aggregate of the justifiedLAKAS sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of the bail
ATENISTA
demanded. College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and above all
just debts, obligations and properties exempt from execution. (12a)
2011 Edition
SEC. 13. Justification of sureties. – Every surety shall justify by affidavit taken before the judge that he
possesses the qualification prescribed in the preceding section. He shall describe the property given as
security, stating the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and amount of other bails entered into
by him and still undischarged, and his other liabilities. The court may examine the sureties upon oath
concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper. No bail shall be approved unless the
surety is qualified. (13a)
SEC. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. – 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 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. (14a)
RECOGNIZANCE
Let’s go to the 4th type of bail – recognizance – which are not understood by many how it operates.
SEC. 15. Recognizance. – Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a person in custody
on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. (15a)
So, no money – nothing is filed in court. “On my word of honor, I will appear when the court requires me to
appear. If I’m convicted, don’t be afraid. I will not runaway.” Court: “Word of honor ha? OK!” – Yan! Yan ang
recognizance.
Or, instead of going to jail, “Payag man ang mayor na doon na lang daw ako sa kanya. Siya daw ang bahala
sa akin.” Court: “OK. You will be in the custody of the mayor. Kung may problema, or anytime you are required to
appear, you appear!” And the mayor will promise, “Akong bahala dito. Hindi ito tatakbo. Sagot ko ito.” – Yan ang
recognizance – word of you word or word of a responsible person.
Para bang character loan – you borrow money, no collateral and I promise to pay you. Creditor: “Believe ako
sa iyo. Your word is as good as a security. OK!”
Q: Is recognizance possible in all criminal cases?
A: NO. Under the rules, recognizance is only allowed whenever allowed by law or these Rules. So, if it is not
allowed by law or the rules, hindi puwede.
Q: How do you define recognizance?

A: A recognizance 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. (People vs. Abner, 87 Phil. 566, 569)
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
The next question is, what are the instances where recognizance is allowed by the law or this Rules? There
are four (4) instances originated and as mentioned by the SC in the 1997 case of ESPIRITU VS. JOVELLANOS (280
SCRA 579). But even before JOVELLANOS came out, the 1985 Rules says that recognizance is possible if allowed by
law or the Rules. Ano man yang “by law or this Rules”? So as early as 1985, I was already gathering the instances
when the law or the rules allow it. And I gathered four (4). Meron pa man sigurong iba, pero di ko pa siguro nakita.
That is why when the case of Jovellanos came out, tiningnan ko – exactly the very four! – not more, not less.
Q: What are the instances when recognizance is allowed by the law or this Rules?
A: In the case of ESPIRITU VS. JOVELLANOS (280 SCRA 579):
1. Under RA 6036 – when the offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, a light felony, or a criminal
offense, the imposable penalty for which does not exceed 6 months imprisonment and/or P2,000 fine, under the
circumstances provided in R.A. No. 6036;
2. Rule 114, Section 16, last paragraph:

“A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for
the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall
be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court.”
3. Rule 114, Section 24:

“No bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction has become final. If before such finality, the accused
applies for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused is
incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of
the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence.”
4. Under PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Act) – in case of a youthful offender held for physical and mental
examination, trial, or appeal, if he is unable to furnish bail and under the circumstances envisaged in P.D. No. 603,
as amended.
R.A. 7610
“SECTION 25. Rights of Children Arrested for Reasons Related to Armed Conflict. — Any child who has
been arrested for reasons related to armed conflict, either as combatant, courier, guide or spy is entitled to the
following rights;
(a) Separate detention from adults except where families are accommodated as family units;
(b) Immediate free legal assistance;
(c) Immediate notice of such arrest to the parents or guardians of the child; and
(d) Release of the child on recognizance within twenty-four (24) hours to the custody of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development or any responsible member of the community as determined by the court.”
P.D. 603
ARTICLE 191. Care of Youthful Offender Held for Examination or Trial. — A youthful offender held for physical
and mental examination or trial or pending appeal, if unable to furnish bail, shall from the time of his arrest be
committed to the care of the Department of Social Welfare or the local rehabilitation center or a detention home
in the province or city which shall be responsible for his appearance in court whenever required: Provided, That in
the absence of any such center or agency within a reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the provincial,
city and municipal jail shall provide quarters for youthful offenders separate from other detainees. The court may,
in its discretion, upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare or other agency or agencies
authorized by the Court, release a youthful offender on recognizance, to the custody of his parents or other
suitable person who shall be responsible for his appearance whenever required.
SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 20-79
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
R.A. 6036
SECTION 1. Any provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding, bail shall not be required of a
person charged with 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 months imprisonment and/or a fine of two thousand pesos, or
both, where said person has established to the satisfaction of the court or any other appropriate authority hearing
his case that he is unable to post the required cash or bail bond, except in the following cases:
(a) When he is caught committing the offense in flagrante;

(b) When he confesses to the commission of the offense unless the confession is later repudiated by him in a
sworn statement or in open court as having been extracted through force or intimidation;
(c) When he is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or jumped bail;
(d) When he is found to have previously violated the provisions of Section 2 hereof;
(e) When he is found to be a recidivist or a habitual delinquent or has been previously convicted for an
offense to which the law or ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more offenses to which it
attaches a lighter penalty;
(f) When he commits the offense while on parole or under conditional pardon; and
(g) When the accused has previously been pardoned by the municipal or city mayor for violation of
municipal or city ordinance for at least two times.
SECTION 2. Instead of bail, the person charged with any offense contemplated by Section 1 hereof 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 the 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. The Clerk of
Court shall immediately report the presence of the accused person to the Court. Except when his failure to report
is for justifiable reasons including circumstances beyond his control to be determined by the Court, any violation
of this sworn statement shall justify the Court to order his immediate arrest unless he files bail in the amount
forthwith fixed by the Court.
Where a person is charged with any offense contemplated by Republic Act No. 6036 (copy attached), the
Judge should as therein provided order the release of the accused on recognizance instead of requiring bail.
SEC. 16. OF REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
SECTION 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to
appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a
responsible citizen acceptable to the court.
SEC. 16. OF RULE 114

“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. If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro,
he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.”
A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for
the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall
be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. (16a)
Those are the four instances where recognizance is allowed. So it is not possible in all cases.
This reminds of a former student of this law school who graduated way back in 1977. He is from Agusan. I
remember during the mid-80’s, I went to Cagayan. Wala pa itong Buda, so I have to travel via Butuan. On my way
back at around 4 P.M., we were riding in a private vehicle, we stopped at a town in Agusan. We took a break kay
kapoy eh. There were numerous big houses there. And then I saw this attorney so and so and I recognized him
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
because he was a graduate of this school. Anyway I’m not in a hurry, I went there. So I met this lawyer and I gave
my name. ATTY: “Uy! You! We did not see each other for a long time. Kumusta?” DEAN: “I was just passing by.
What are you doing now?” ATTY: “I’m practicing law. Karamihan criminal.” And I noticed marami siyang helpers sa
bahay niya. So I asked him, “Ba’t karami mo namang houseboys?” ATTY: “They are not houseboys, Sir. They are all
accused!” DEAN: “Why are they with you?” ATTY: “Recognizance.” DEAN: “Ano pala mga crimes nila?” ATTY:
“Murder, Homicide.” Na-shock ako!! Paano nakakuha ng recognizance ito eh hindi man puwede yan because
recognizance is only possible if allowed by law or the rules. Pero nobody is complaining naman there.
TABAO VS BARATAMAN
AM NO. MTJ-01-1384 (April 11, 2002)
FACTS: The present administrative case stems from an affidavit-complaint filed by Tabao
charging respondent judge Barataman, in his capacity as acting presiding judge of
MTCC, Branch 1 of Marawi City with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of
discretion. Complainant Tabao is the private complainant in a criminal case for
abandonment of minor. It appears that respondent judge Barataman issued an order
granting the motion for bail on recognizance file by the father or the accused. The
motion of the prosecution to cance bail on the ground that accused is a CPA and can
afford to post cash bond was denied by respondent judge in an order stating that the
law, in a allowing bail on recognizance does not distinguish whether an accused is rich
or poor. Complainant avers that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion
in granting the motion for bail on recognizance because (1) it was filed not by the
accused but by his father, Hadji Yusoph Tabao; (2) the prosecutor was not furnished a
copy of the motion and there was no hearing conducted; (3) it lacked the sworn
statement of the accused signed in the presence of two witnesses. In his comment, the
respondent judge alleges that the crime of abandonment of a minor is covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure and hence bail on recognizance is not required as the
court can immediately arraign and try the accused; that if he were the acting judge
when the criminal case was filed, he would not issue a warrant of arr3st but order4
thje4 immediate arraignment and trial of the case and there would be no need to
discuss the matter on bail.
HELD: Respondent judge does not deny that the accused in the said criminal case was at large
when the motion for bail on recognizance was filed and subsequently granted. Bail is a
security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. Section 15 of Rule 114
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the court may release a
person in custody on his own recognizance or that of responsible person. 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, the Supreme court held that it is premature to file a
motion for bail for someone whose liberty has yet to be curtailed. In the case at bar,
respondent judge was fully cognizant that the court had nbo5t yet acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the accused who was still at large and yet, he entertained and
granted his motion for bail. In doing so, respondent judge violated a tenet in criminal
procedure whis is too basic as to constitute gross ignorance3 of the law.
SEC. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. – No bail shall be required when the law
or these Rules so provide.
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. If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
A person in custody for a period equal to or more
LAKAS than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed
ATENISTA
for the offense charged, without College Of Law, Ateneo
application of theDeIndeterminate
Davao University
Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court.
(16a)
2011 Edition
Let’s go further. As a general rule, when the criminal case is filed, there will be warrant of arrest. If there is
warrant of arrest, there must be a bail either in cash or recognizance. But Section 16 provides that no bail shall be
required when the law or these Rules so provide. This is now the question:
Q: What are the instances where despite the pendency of the criminal case, the accused is not required to
post bail? Meaning, he is exempt from putting up a bail bond because the law or the rules says so.
A: The following are the instances:
1. Under RA 6036 – when the imposable penalty is 6 months or less under the conditions mentioned
therein;
2. When the crime is covered by the Summary Rules under Section 16 of Rule 114. When a case is filed
under the Summary Rules, a mere notice is sufficient. No need of a warrant of arrest.
3. Section 9 [b] of Rule 112 (this is a new sentence):
“x x x x However, if 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.”
So, the court is satisfied that there is no need to issue a warrant of arrest maybe because the court believes
that you will not run away. In effect, no bail shall be required.
SEC. 17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is
pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan
trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city or municipality. If the
accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be
filed with any regional trial court of said place, of if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial
judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on recognizance,
the application may be filed only in the court where the case is pending, on trial or appeal.
Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province,
city, or municipality where he is held. (17a).
(AM No. 05-8-26-SC: MTC judges are not authorized to conduct preliminary investigation anymore)
Section 17 is another important provision on where to file the bail. Normally, you file the bail before the same
court where you case is pending. But if the judge is not around, under paragraph [a], puwede man any RTC judge,
MTC judge, etc.
Q: Suppose your case is in Davao and you are arrested in Manila, can you post bail in Manila?
A: YES because it would be very tedious if you will be arrested and brought back in Davao just to post bail.
And under paragraph [a], it may be filed with any RTC of such place. And of course, the judge there will accept the
bail and transmit everything to Davao.
Q: What are the instances where the accused is only allowed to post bail before the very same court where
the case is pending?
A: Under paragraph [b], the following are the instances:
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
1. if you seek to be released on recognizance, no other judge can grant it other than the judge where your
case is pending;
2. when bail is a matter of discretion. For example: Ms. Tormon is accused of a capital offense and she
would like to file a petition for bail because the evidence of guilt is not strong, that should be decided by the very
court where her case is pending.
Q: Is the MTC entitled to entertain a petition for bail?

A: YES
Q: What are the instances when a MTC is entitled to entertain applications for bail?
A: The following are the instances:
1. Under paragraph [b], the application may be filed in the court where the case is pending, whether on
preliminary investigation, trial, or appeal. With this provision, it would seem puwede;
2. MTC can entertain petitions for bail in cases not cognizable by it filed before it for purposes of
preliminary investigation. That is why in one case the SC held that inferior courts (MTC) can entertain applications
for bail in capital offenses as an incident to its power to conduct preliminary investigation. (Manigbas vs. Luna, 98
Phil. 466); and [Note: AM No. 05-8-26-SC- MTC judges are not authorized to conduct preliminary investigation
anymore]
3. Section 35 of the Judiciary law (Special jurisdiction of the MTC) –the MTC may hear and decide petitions
for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in the absence of ALL the RTC judges.
Let’s go now to the last paragraph of Section 17:
“Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province,
city, or municipality where he is held.”
This is one provision that has stunned so many: how can a person be in custody wh en he is not yet charged in
court? He is already in custody pero wala pa mang kaso? What is contemplated under the last paragraph of
Section 17 is Rule 112 Section 7 on INQUEST preliminary investigation – when a person is lawfully arrested
without a warrant, he will be detained immediately without preliminary investigation. But if he demands a
preliminary investigation, he can get it but he must waive the effects of Article 125 of the RPC.
Section 7, Rule 112, last sentence of second paragraph provides: “Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply
for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.” So he can ask for bail
even if he is not yet charged in court.
Q: If you apply for bail with any court in the province, city or municipality, ano ang title and number ng
petition mo? You cannot put there “People of the Philippines versus…” kay wala pa mang criminal case? What will
be your reference?
A: “IN RE: PETITION FOR BAIL.” So bahala na kayo diyan. Bahala na ang clerk of court how to docket it. Basta
that is my right under the law! So you think of your own caption.
JUDGE SIMBULAN V. JUDGE BARTOLOME

June 5, 2009
FACTS: An accused to a criminal case pending before the RTC of San Fernando Pamapanga
voluntarily surrendered before the MTC of Sta. Maria Bulacan and posted her bail bond
in the latter court. Respondent MTC Judge approved the surety bond posted by the
accused.
ISSUE: WON the respondent’s approval of the bail bond was proper?
HELD: No. The OCA’s Report revealed that the accused Rosalina Mercado was not arrested. The
proper procedure, according to the Sec. 17 Rule 114, would have been to file her bail
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
bond with the RTC Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga where her case was pending.
Had complainant Judge been absent or was unavailable at that time, the accused could
file for bail with another branch of the RTC in Pampanga or in San Fernando City.
LIM VS DUMLAO
AM NO. NTJ-04-1556 (March 31 2005)
FACTS: Complainant Purita Lim charged respondent judge Dumlao of the MTC of San Mateo
Isabela with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. Lim averred the
she filed two criminal case with RTC of Santiago City,Isabela Branch 35against a certain
Medina. Medina was apprehended by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by Judge
Madrid of Branch 35. The following day, judge Dumlao issued 3 orders for the release of
Medina on the ground that he had posted bail with his court. Complainant alleged that
respondent judge frequently approves bail bonds for cases filed in other courts and
outside the territorial jurisdiction of his court. He also issues search warrants for
implementation outside of his court’s jurisdiction which, resultantly, are often quashed
and the corresponding cases dismissed because the articles seized were inadmissible as
evidence.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that it is not disputed that the criminal cases filed by
complainant against Medina were pending before the RTC of Santiago City, Isabel,
Branch 35. In fact, the3 warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Madrid, presiding judge
of the said court. The order of release therefore, on account of the posting of the bail,
should have been issued by that court, or in the absence or unavailability of judge
Madrid, by another branch of an RTC in Santiago City. In this case, however, there is no
proof that Judge Madrid was absent or unavailable at the time of the posting of the bail
bond. In fact, complainant avers that ton the day respondent judge ordered the release
of Medina, Judge Madrid and all the judges of the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela were at
their respective posts. It is elementary that a municipal trial court judge has no
authority to grant bail to an accused arrested outside of his territorial jurisdiction. The
requirements of Section 17 (a) of Rule 114 as quoted above must be complied with
before a judge may grant bail.
SAVELLA vs. Judge INES, MTC-Sinait, Ilocos Sur

A.M. No. MTJ-07-1673 (April 19, 2007)
FACTS: A criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Document was filed by complainant
against one Ibañez before the MTCC-Vigan, Ilocos Sur . Respondent judge was the
Presiding Judge of the MTC-Sinait, Ilocos Sur. A warrant of arrest was not immediately
served on the accused because she was residing in the USA at that time. Later, NBI
operatives tried to serve an alias warrant of arrest on the accused, who reportedly
returned to the Philippines. The accused, however, was not found at her residence.
Instead, her daughter produced a copy of the Order issued by respondent judge
directing the provisional release of the accused upon posting of bail bond.
HELD: Respondent judge failed to properly apply the rule regarding the bail bond application.
Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that “(b)ail in the amount
fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or, in the absence or
unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial
judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge of the province or city or
municipality.” The instant falsification case against accused was filed before the MTCC-
Vigan, presided by Judge Ante. There was no showing of the unavailability of Judge
Ante at that time. Following the said rule, respondent judge clearly erred in
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
entertaining the bail application despite knowledge of the pendency of the falsification
case before the MTCC of Vigan.
Assuming arguendo that respondent judge rightfully granted bail to accused, her failure
to transmit the order of release and other supporting papers to the court where the
case is pending constitutes another violation of the rules, particularly Section 19 of Rule
114. Respondent judge should have forwarded the records pertaining to the bail bond
immediately after she received the same.
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER

April 7, 2010
FACTS: Judge Tamang approved not only the bail bonds issued by Covenant, a blacklisted
bonding company, but also the bail bonds in some instances for accused persons
charged in criminal cases pending outside her territorial jurisdiction.
HELD: Under Sec. 17 of Rule 114, the bail bond may be filed either with the court where the
case is pending, or with any RTC of the place of arrest, or if no RTC Judge is available,
with any MeTC or MTC of the place of arrest.
SEC. 18. Notice of application to prosecutor.– In the application for bail under section 8 of this Rule, the
court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his
recommendation.
TORREVILLAS V. JUDGE NAVIDAD

April 29, 2009
FACTS: Respondent judge issued orders granting bail to accused in criminal cases that were
charged with murder and frustrated murder without conducting a hearing and without
affording the prosecution the opportunity to prove the strength of its evidence.
ISSUE: WON the respondent judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law?
HELD: Yes. Respondent judge knowingly disregarded the well-established rule that no person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of
the stage of the criminal prosecution. Under the present rule, a hearing on application
for bail is mandatory. Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, the prosecutor
should be given reasonable notice of hearing, or at least his recommendation on the
matter must be sought. These tasks were ignored by the judge.
SEC. 19. Release on bail.– The accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by the judge with
whom it was filed in accordance with section 17 of this Rule.
When bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge who accepted the bail
shall forward it, together with the order of release and other supporting papers, to the court where the case
is pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed.
VIRGINIA SAVELLA V. JUDGE INES

April 19, 2007
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
FACTS: Respondent is the presiding judge of MTC-Sinait who issued order for the provisional
release of the accused to a pending criminal case before the MTCC-Vigan when the said
accused voluntarily surrendered to her and posted bail. However the bail bond papers
were not forwarded to MTCC-Vigan.
ISSUE: WON the respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law?
HELD: Yes. The grant of the bail was improper. Assuming arguendo that respondent judge
rightfully granted bail to accused, her failure to transmit the order of release and other
supporting papers to the court where the case is pending constitutes another violation
of the rules, particularly Sec. 19 of Rule 114. Respondent judge should have forwarded
the records pertaining to the bail bond immediately after she received the same.
SEC. 20. Increase or reduction of bail.– After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good
cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he
does not give bail in the increased amount within a reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal
charge, who is released without bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may, at any subsequent
stage of the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give
bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.
SEC. 21. Forfeiture of bail. – 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 bondsmen given thirty (30) days
within which to produce their principal and to show 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. (21a)
Another important provision is Section 21 – how bail is forfeited.

If you are required to appear in court for an arraignment, or for some other reason, and you did not appear,
the first step is, upon motion of the prosecution, the court will issue an order to confiscate the bond and the court
will also direct the bondsmen:
1. to produce the body of their principal within 30 days; AND
2. to explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.
Dalawa yan – (1) produce him within 30 days, and (2) explain why you failed to produced him. If you satisfy
both conditions, no problem – the court will issue an order lifting the order of the forfeiture.
Q: Suppose you failed to comply both or one of the conditions, what will happen?
A: The court will render judgment on the bond. Meaning, the bonding company is now liable on its bond.
So ang una, order of confiscation or forfeiture of the bond. The second stage is, if the conditions are not met,
there will be judgment against the bond. So that is the step-by-step application of Section 21.
TALAG vs. REYES

AM No. RTJ-04-1852 (June 3, 2004)
HELD: The complainant blames the respondent for his failure to appear at this arraignment
because the notice was sent to the wrong address despite a prior notice for change of
address. A cursory reading the notice of change of address will show that it pertains to
the counsel’s residence, not the complainant’s ole and unchanged residence. As
correctly pointed out by respondent judge, the produce orders settings were sent to
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
complainant’s bondsman. Hence, in accordance with Section 21 of Rule 114 of the

Revised Rules of Court, his bondsman must produce him before the court on the give
date and failing to do so; the bond was forfeited as it was.
MENDOZA V. ALARMA
May 3, 2008
FACTS: The accused in a criminal case failed to appear in person before the court. Accordingly,
the trial court declared his bail forfeited. The trial court gave the respondent bondsmen
a 30-day period to produce the accused or a reasonable explanation for their non-
production. However, 2 years had passed from the time the court ordered the forfeiture
and still no judgment had been rendered against the bondsmen for the amount of the
bail. Instead, an order of execution was issued and the property was put up for sale and
was awarded to the highest bidders which are the petitioners.
ISSUE: WON the respondent bondsmen have the right to the property?
HELD: Yes. Sec. 21 of Rule 114 provides for the procedure to be followed before a bail bond
may be forfeited and a judgment on the bond rendered against the surety. There are 2
requisites before the trial court judge may rule adversely against the bondsmen in cases
when the accused fails to appear in court. 1st, the non-appearance by the accused is
cause for the judge to summarily declare the bond as forfeited. 2nd, the bondsmen,
after the summary forfeiture of the bond, are given 30 days within which to produce the
principal and to show cause why a judgment should not be rendered against them for
the amount of the bond. It is only after this 30-day period that the trial court may render
a judgment on the bond against the bondsmen.
In this case, no such judgment was ever issued and neither has an amount been fixed for
which the bondsmen may be held liable. The law was not strictly observed and this
violated the bondsmen’s right to procedural due process.
SEC. 22. Cancellation of bail. – 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.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail.
BONGCAC V. SB
May 21, 2009
FACTS: On Mar. 28, 2002 SB rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of estafa. This was
appealed by petitioner via petition for review on certiorari before the SC but the petition
was denied in a Resolution on Feb. 20, 2002. The resolution became final and executory
on Apr. 2, 2002 consequently the SB decision also became final and executory. On Jan.
10, 2003 the SB issued a bench warrant of arrest against petitioner and the cash bond
posted by petitioner for his provisional liberty was order cancelled.
ISSUE: WON the cancellation of the bail bond was proper?
HELD: Yes. Sec. 22 of Rule 114 provides that the cancellation of bail is automatic upon
execution of the judgment of conviction. The Sandiganbayan did not err in cancelling
petitioner’s cash bail bond after the judgment of conviction became final and executory
and its execution became ministerial.
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
PEOPLE V. CAWALING
April 17, 2009
FACTS: Cawaling was convicted of murder and Cruz his bond person filed a motion to withdraw
property bond and post cash bond in lieu thereof.
ISSUE: WON the property bond may be replaced with a cash bond?
HELD: No. Sec. 22 of Rule 114 provides that 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.
With the conviction of Cawaling for murder, and the Court’s consequent failure to
execute the judgment of conviction because of Cawaling’s flight, the motion must be
denied. The posted property bond cannot be cancelled, much less withdrawn and
replaced with a cash bond by movant Cruz, unless Cawaling is surrendered to the Court,
or adequate proof of his death is presented
SEC. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. – For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may
arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested
by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion.
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from
the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending. (23a)
Section 23 is an instance of a valid warrantless arrest. This is a continuation of Section 5 Rule 113.
For the purpose of surrendering the accused, they can arrest him without a warrant. The bondsman is his
jailer. The theory of bond, lalo na yung corporate bond, is that the sureties or bondmen becomes you jailer in the
eyes of the law, and you are their prisoner. They took over the government. In reality, they are not really
imprisoning you. You are a free man. And importante, you put up money for you release – you pay premium, back
up your commitment with property. Parang insurance din ito eh.
Now halimbawa, nainis sila sa iyo? – hindi ka nagabayad ng premium – puwede ka man nila arestuhin bah!
The bondsmen can have you arrested without a warrant. So diretso ka sa jail.
Let’s go to last paragraph of Section 23. If you are attempting to leave the Philippines, lalo na kung may hold
departure order, even if you are on bail, you can be arrested without a warrant. Now, we will go to this question
related to you constitutional right to travel:
Q: How do you reconcile Section 23 with the constitutional right to travel?

A: In the 1986 case of
MANOTOC vs. COURT OF APPEALS
142 SCRA 149
ISSUE: How come if you are out on bail, you cannot leave the country without the permission
of the court?
HELD: “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.”
(because this is one of the conditions of the bail bond – you must be available
whenever the court requires you to appear.)
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
“Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason,
he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. 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.”
“The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country without the assent of the
surety because in accepting a bail bond or recognizance, the government impliedly
agrees that it will not take any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks
of the sureties or affect their remedies against him. Under this rule, the surety on a bail
bond or recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the
conditions thereof, which is made without his assent.”
So, if your own bondsmen have the right to prevent you, with more reasons with the court who has the
complete jurisdiction over your person. But even if the court wants to grant you permission to leave, gusto mong
mag-tour, but sabi ng bondsmen, “Ayoko nga!”, then the court has no power to grant your request because the
bondsmen must also agree. (Manotoc vs. CA, supra)
SILVERIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

April 8, 1991
FACTS: Silverio was charged criminally for violation of Revised Securities Act. For more than
two years, there were series of postponements of the arraignment scheduled therein.
He could not be arraigned because he had gone abroad several times without the
necessary court approval. The prosecution got fed up already. So upon motion of the
prosecution, the trial court ordered the DFA to cancel Silverio’s passport or to deny the
application to re-new the passport. The Commission on Immigration is also ordered to
prevent Silverio from leaving the country.
Now, according to Silverio, the court’s orders are unconstitutional because under the
Constitution, courts can impair the right of a citizen to travel only on the ground of
national security, public safety or public health. Silverio: “Is there an issue of national
security? Wala man! Public safety? Wala man! Public health? Wala rin! Therefore, you
cannot prevent me from travelling.”
The SC here traced the history of that constitutional provision. How did that provision
come out?
HELD: The phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international
travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center,
which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party.
(because during the Marcos era, he created a travel processing agency headed by
General Ver, where every Filipino who wants to travel abroad must be cleared by that
office.) Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be construed
as delimiting the inherent power of the courts to use all means necessary to carry their
orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them.
In other words, the court has always the power to prevent an accused from leaving for abroad. And that
constitutional provision was never interpreted to limit the power of the court. Therefore, Silverio was citing the
wrong provision. The philosophy does not apply to Silverio. Yaan!
SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORENA

(December 2, 1993)
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
FACTS: Several criminal cases were filed against Miriam Santiago arising from her tenure as
Immigration Commissioner. Now, she was interviewed by the media and she said that
she is leaving in a few days for abroad because she was offered a fellowship grant by
the Harvard University. Nabasa ng Sandiganbayan ang interview sa newspaper, “Uy!
Aalis! Alright, Hold-Departure Order!” Santiago questioned the order.
ISSUE: May a court trying a criminal case issue a hold-departure order motu propio to prevent
the accused from leaving the country even if the prosecution did not file any motion to
issue such order?
HELD: YES. “The court has the power to issue motu propio a hold-departure order. The hold-
departure order is but an exercise of the court’s inherent power to preserve and to
maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the
accused.”
MARCOS vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
247 SCRA [August 9, 1995]
FACTS: Criminal charges were filed against Imelda Marcos. In one of the cases, she was
convicted by the Sandiganbayan. After conviction, she filed a motion for
reconsideration and while her motion was pending, she filed a motion for leave to
travel abroad for treatment of hypertensive heart disease, uncontrolled angina
pectoris, and anterior myocardial infarction. The motion was supported by medical
reports prepared by her physician, cardiologist and other doctors in the Makati Med.
Presiding Justice Garchitorena referred the issue to a committee of cardiologists from
Health Center of the Philippines for extra opinion on some questions among which was:
“Is Marcos’ condition fatal? Or, Is she in danger of dying? The committee submitted a
report which was heard in the presence of the two lawyers of Marcos. Report ng
committee: she was sick but the evidence not confirm the allegation that Mrs. Marcos
is in the high risk group of sudden cardiac death. In other words, she is sick but she is
not in danger of dyiing.
With that, the Sandiganbayan, “Ah hindi pala malala eh! So, wala! Motion denied!”
Marcos went to the SC attacking the Sandiganbayan order alleging that the court
adopted an unusual and unorthodox conduct by motu propio conducting a third party
asking the latter to give an opinion. Marcos: “Nobody is questioning. Bakit ba itong
Sandiganbayan will not take the words of my doctors? Parang walang kumpiyansa!”
HELD: “The Sandiganbayan acted properly. Respondent court had to seek expert opinion
because petitioner's motion was based on the advice of her physician. The court could
not be expected to just accept the opinion of petitioner's physician in resolving her
request for permission to travel. The subject lay beyond its competence and since the
grant of the request depended on the verification of the claim that petitioner was
suffering from a medical condition that was alleged to be serious and life threatening,
the respondent court, we think, followed the only prudent course available of seeking
the opinion of other specialists in the field.”
“Indeed, when even in their own field of expertise (law) courts are allowed to invite
amici curiae to shed light on recondite points of law, there is no reason for denying
them assistance on other subjects.”
“Perhaps the best proof that she is not in the group is the fact that she ran in the last
election for a seat in the House of Representatives and won. It may be assumed that
she waged an arduous political campaign but apparently is none the worse for it.”
Meaning, even in law which is already your field of expertise, the court are even allowed to seek the help of
other lawyers, lalo na when it comes to the field of medicine. And finally after one year, she ran for
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
congresswoman in Leyte and she won. Of course when you campaign, you have to undergo a terrible schedule of
campaigns. Eh bakit buhay ka pa? So in other words, you are not really in danger of dying. And she is very much
alive now.
COJUANGCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

300 SCRA 367 [1998]
FACTS: Cojuangco has several pending cases before the Sandiganbayan. And there is a travel
ban everytime he travels abroad.
ISSUE: Is there a need of hold-departure orders everytime Cojuangco travels abroad

considering that many things happened to Cojuangco?
HELD: “We resolve in the negative. The travel ban should be lifted, considering all the
circumstances now prevailing. It now becomes necessary that there be strong and
compelling reasons to justify the continued restriction on Cojuangco’s right to travel
abroad. Admittedly, all of Cojuangco’s previous requests to travel abroad have been
granted and that Cojuangco has always returned to the Philippines and complied with
the restrictions imposed on him.”
“The necessity of further denying Cojuangco’s right to travel abroad, with attendant
restrictions, appears less than clear. The risk of flight is further diminished in view of
Cojuangco’s recent reinstatement as Chairman and Chief Executive of San Miguel
Corporation, though he has now more justification to travel so as to oversee the entire
operations of that company. In this regard, it has to be conceded that his assumption of
such vital post has come at a time when the current economic crisis has adversely
affected by international operations of many companies, including San Miguel.”
“The need to travel abroad frequently on the party of Cojuangco, to formulate and
implement the necessary corporate strategies and decisions, could not be forestalled.
These considerations affecting Cojuangco’s duties to a publicly held company, militate
against imposing further restrictions on Cojuangco’s right to travel abroad.”
Q: May a MTC Judge issue a hold departure in criminal case pending before it?
In the case of
MONDEJAR VS. BUBAN

361 SCRA 119 [July 12, 2001]
FACTS: Complainant Mondejar charged Judge Buban of MTCC, Tacloban City, Branch 1, with
gross ignorance of the law, partiality, serious irregularity and grave misconduct relative
to a criminal case against the complainant for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. She alleged that
respondent judge issued a “hold departure order” against her in violation of Supreme
Court Circular No. 39-97 which provides that “hold departure orders” shall be issued
only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
Held: Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases
within the jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular
specifically provides that “hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.” Clearly then, criminal
cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do not fall within the ambit of
the circular, and it was an error on the part of respondent judge to have issued one in
the instant case.
GOVERNMENT vs. PURGANAN

389 SCRA 623 (2002)
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
HELD: The constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, w/c are
not criminal in nature. 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. The constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like
extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.
But in
GOV’T OF HONG KONG, VS. OLALIA, JR. AND MUÑOZ,
G.R. No. 153675, [April 19, 2007]
FACTS: HK requested for the extradition of Muñoz who was facing criminal charges in the HK
court. In the extradition case, the petition for bail was granted. Records show that
Muñoz had been detained for over 2 years without having been convicted of any crime
when the bail was granted. HK questioned the grant of bail.
HELD: While this Court in Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal
proceedings, however, in light of the various international treaties giving recognition
and protection to human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination
of this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order.
[Additional] x x x to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to
our jurisprudential history. Philippine jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the
right to bail to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail persons who
are not involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed in this
jurisdiction to persons in detention during the pendency of administrative proceedings,
taking into cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international conventions
to uphold human rights. x x x While our extradition law does not provide for the grant
of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing
a motion for bail, a right to due process under the Constitution.
The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be the same as that in
criminal proceedings. In the latter, the standard of due process is premised on the
presumption of innocence of the accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is from
this major premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises.
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the
issuance of the arrest warrant and the “temporary detention” is the possibility of flight
of the potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a
fugitive from justice. Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the
onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
Obviously, 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. “Temporary detention” may be a necessary step in the process of
extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable.
The case was REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether Muñoz is entitled to
bail on the basis of “clear and convincing evidence.”
Q: What is the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail?

A: An extradition proceeding being sui generis, it can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in
criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in
character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object
of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard
which he termed “clear and convincing evidence” should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According
to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that he is not a flight risk and
will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. (GOV’T OF HONG KONG, VS. OLALIA)
SEC. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. – No bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction
has become final. If before such finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be allowed temporary
liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his
release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be
allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence.
SEC. 25. Court supervision of detainees. – The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody
for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention. The executive judges of the Regional Trial Courts shall
conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, and municipal jails and the prisoners within their
respective jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the number of detainees, inquire on their proper
accommodation and health and examine the condition of the jail facilities. They shall order the segregation
of sexes and of minors from adults, ensure the observance of the right of detainees to confer privately with
counsel, and strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the detainees.
In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme Court, the municipal trial judges or municipal
circuit trial judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of the municipal jails in their respective
municipalities and submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
therein.
A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the executive judges to the Court Administrator
which shall state the total number of detainees, the names of those held for more than thirty (30) days, the
duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the cause for detention, and other pertinent
information.
SEC. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on 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 therefore, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a
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 trial of the case.
(n)
Q: If you post bail, are you under estoppel to question the validity of the arrest or the regularity or absence
of a preliminary investigation?
A: Under Section 26, NO. The pivotal point is for as long as you have not yet entered your plea. Once you
entered your plea, all the defects are considered waived. But the posting of bail alone is not considered as waiver
to raise those issues.
BORLONGAN V. PENA
May 5, 2010
FACTS: Accused immediately posted bail when a warrant for their arrest was issued. On the
scheduled date for their arraignment they refused to enter a plea, thus the court
entered a plea of “Not Guilty”. The accused are questioning the validity of the warrant
but the trial court believes that they could no longer question its validity since they
already posted bail.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners can still question the validity of the warrant even when they have
already posted bail?
LAKAS ATENISTA
2011 Edition
HELD: Yes. The earlier ruling of the SC that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of the right to
question the validity of the arrest has already been superseded by Sec. 26 of Rule 114.
Furthermore, the principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of
his arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates
during trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto.
Records reveal that petitioners filed the omnibus motion to quash the information and
warrant of arrest, and for reinvestigation, on the same day that they posted bail. Their
bail bonds likewise expressly contained a stipulation that they were not waiving their
right to question the validity of their arrest. On the date of the arraignment, the
petitioners refused to enter their plea, obviously because the issue of the legality of the
information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the Court. This notwithstanding,
the court entered a plea of Not Guilty. From these circumstances, we cannot reasonably
infer a valid waiver on the part of the petitioners, as to preclude them from raising the
issue of the validity of the arrest before the CA and eventually before this Court.
LAKAS ATENISTA

Rule 114 Bail

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Rule 114 Bail

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 144

Q: And what is the primary purpose of bail?

Purpose and Nature of Bail (From Atty. Europa’s Notes)

PADERANGA V. COURT OF APPEALS 247 SCRA 741 (1995)

MANIGBAS VS. LUNA, 98 Phil. 466 [1956]

GUILLERMA DELOS SANTOS-REYES VS. JUDGE CAMILO O. MONTESA

Q: In this case, can Ruby apply for bail?

Q: What do you mean by “in custody of law”?

PADERANGA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Q: What are the types of bail?

Q: Anong tawag niyan?

ORBE VS. DIGANDANG

ISSUE: WON the release was valid?

Now, we go to these important issues on bail:

BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

So based on the provision of law, let us try to outline –

1. Before conviction by the MTC, MTC, or MCTC (Section 4 [a]);

PEOPLE vs. DONATO

SAN MIGUEL VS. JUDGE MACEDA

BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION

Q: What will the court do?

Now, the second sentence is new:

This is a reversal of a ruling in the case of

OMOSA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

ISSUE: Can the court approve the bail?

Alright. Now let us go to the second paragraph:

Alright, let us go now to the next sentence:

Alright. Let us go back to the basic:

Q: When is bail discretionary?

Q: What is the remedy to this kind of accused? Remedy?

RUFINA CHUA V. CA AND CHIOK

ISSUE: WON the bail bond of the accused should be cancelled?

OCA V. JUDGE LORENZO

ISSUE: WON the release was valid?

DIPATUAN V. JUDGE MANGOTARA

ISSUE: WON the decision to increase the bail was proper?

1. If evidence of guilt is STRONG – judge should DENY bail

WHEN BAIL IS DENIED

ISSUE: WON Milagros is entitled to bail?

Now, this is where lalabas yung application for bail – Section 8:

Q: What happens now to those witnesses? Balik na naman sila sa trial?

TUCAY vs. JUDGE DOMAGAS

GUILLERMO vs. JUDGE REYES, JR.

HELD: “A hearing, in the nature of a summary proceeding entailing judicial determination is

AURILLO vs. FRANCISCO

AGUIRRE vs. JUDGE BELMONTE

BASCO vs. RAPATALO

summary of evidence of the prosecution (Baylon v. Sison, supra);

NARCISO vs. STA. ROMANA-CRUZ

Let’s go to this important question:

Q: For bail to be denied, what are the requirements?

BRAVO, JR. vs. BORJA

ISSUE 2: Whether or not Bravo, Jr. is entitled to bail.

PEOPLE vs. CALO

GO vs. JUDGE BONGOLAN

Q: When is bail DISCRETIONARY?

Q: When shall bail be DENIED?

Q: When bail shall be granted, how much is the amount of it?

Q: What do you mean by corporate surety?

Q: How do you define recognizance?

2. Rule 114, Section 16, last paragraph:

3. Rule 114, Section 24:

SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 20-79

(a) When he is caught committing the offense in flagrante;