You are on page 1of 103

Lectures

General Principles
Pinote vs. Ayco, 477 SCRA 409
The trial prosecutor may, at any time, in the exercise
of his discretion, take over from the private
prosecutor the actual conduct of the trial.
Torres vs. Aguinaldo 461 SCRA 599
Baltazar vs. Pantig G.R. No. 149111, Aug. 9, 2005
Once a case has already been filed in court, a trial
prosecutor may be compelled to prosecute the case
notwithstanding his personal convictions or opinions.
He should present the case to the best of his ability
and let the court decide the merits of the case on the
basis of the evidence adduced by both parties.
Effect of institution of criminal
action
It interrupts the running of the prescriptive periods of
violations of special laws or offenses other than those
penalized by the RPC
Zaldivia vs. Reyes G.R. No. L-102342, July 3, 1992
The filing of complaint for purposes of preliminary
investigation starts the prosecution process.
Sec. 412 of RA 7160, Local Government Code of 1990
REMEDIES OF OFFENDED PARTY IF
NPS REFUSES TO FILE INFO
File an action for mandamus, in case of grave abuse of
discretion
Lodge a new complaint before court having
jurisdiction over offense where there is no double
jeopardy
Take up matter with Secretary of Justice
Institute admin charges against prosecutor
File criminal action against prosec
File civil action for damages
Ask for a special prosecutor
May injunction issue to restrain
criminal prosecution?
NO - public interest requires that criminal acts be
immediately investigated and prosecuted for the
protection of the society. (Domingo vs.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 103276, April 14, 1996).
EXCEPT
Hernandez vs. Albano, GR No. L-19272 January 25,
1967
When there is a prejudicial question which is
subjudice;
Planas vs. Gil, GR No. L-46440, Jan. 18, 1939
Lopez vs. City Judge, GR No. L-25795, Oct. 29, 1966
When it is a case of persecution rather thatn
prosecution
EXCEPT
When the charges are manifestly false and motivated
by vengeance
Salonga vs. Pano, GR No. L-59524, Feb. 18, 1985
Brocka vs. Enrile, GR No. 69863-65, Dec. 10, 1990
Young vs. Rafferty, GR No. L-10951, Feb. 14, 1916
COMPLAINT (filed before NPS)
Referral letter from the law enforcement agency
Affidavit of the offended party
Letter (sworn or not) from the offended party
Referral letter from a committee of the Senate of
House of Rep. or any gov’t agencies
Formal complaint
POLICY ON FORMS
As a general rule, a complaint filed with the
prosecutor must be sworn by the complainant, to
discourage harassment charges.
However, referral letter-complaints from law
enforcement agencies or institutions need not be
sworn.
People vs. Sangil 4 SCRA 722
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO FILE
The offended party
Any person or persons authorized by law to file a
complaint
Any law enforcement officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated
Salazar vs. Pp G.R. No. 149472, Oct. 15, 2002
Perez vs. Monetary Board 20 SCRA 592
Under the Rule on Summary
Procedure
A complaint may be directly filed in the MTC,
provided that in Metro Manila and chartered cities,
the criminal action may only be commenced by the
filing of the information, which means, only by the
prosecutor, except when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de oficio.
Prosecution in the RTC is always commenced by
information.
An error in the name of the accused is not reversible
as long as his identity is sufficiently established. This
defect is curable at any stage of the proceedings as
insertion of the real name of accused is merely a
matter of form. (Pp vs. Padica, GR No. 102645, April 7,
1993).
The qualifying and aggravating circumstances cannot
be appreciated even if proved unless alleged in the
information. (Pp vs. Perreras, GR No. 139622, 31 July
2001).
It is not the designation of the offense that is
controlling, the facts alleged therein and not its title
determine the nature of crime. (Pp vs. Magdowa, GR
No. L-48457, Dec. 13, 1941).
The accused may be convicted of a crime more
serious than that named in the title or preliminary
part if such crime is covered by the facts alleged in the
body of the information and its commission is
established by evidence. (buhat vs. CA, GR No. 119601,
Dec. 17, 1996.
People v. Mabuyo, 63 SCRA 532 (1975) -Unless place of
commission is an essential element of the crime, the
accused may be convicted of a crime committed in a
place other than the place alleged in the information,
as long as such other place is still within the
jurisdiction of the court. 
Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991)
Should there be duplicity of offense in the
information, the accused must move for the quashal
of the same BEFORE arraignment. Otherwise, he is
deemed to have waived the objection and may be
found guilty of as many offenses as those charged and
proved during the trial.
Splitting of case is NOT allowed
Amendments
KINDS -
A. before accused enters his plea
as to anything which does not downgrade the charge or
exclude any accused – without leave of court
downgrade the charge or excludes an accused
- upon motion by the prosecutor
- with notice to the offended party
- with leave of court
Amendments
B. after arraignment but before judgment
only as to form – with leave of court and when it can be
done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
accused.
wrong offense charged (amendment by substitution)
Note: the court shall dismiss the original case upon the filing of a
new one charging the proper offense, provided the accused would
not be placed in double jeopardy.
Except: when a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the
crime charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher crime;
but there is a need to arraign the accused.
Amendment is only in FORM -

Where it neither affects nor alters the nature of the


offense charged; or
Where the change does not deprive the accused of a
fair opportunity to present his defense; or
Where it does not involve a change in the basic theory
of the prosecution.
Amendment is in substance-

Almeda vs. Villaluz, GR No. L-31665, August 6, 1975 –


where it covers matters involving the recital of facts
constituting the offense charged and determinative of
the jurisdiction of the court.
Requisites for substitution of a defective
information
It involves a substantial change from the original
charge;
The substitution must be with leave of court as the
original info is to be dismissed
Another preliminary investigation must be conducted
and the accused to plead anew
Substitution presupposes that the new information
involves a different offense which does not include or
is not necessarily included in the original charge
Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 695 – where
second information involves the same offense, or an
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the first information, an amendment of
the info is sufficient; otherwise, where the new info
charges an offense which is distinct and different from
that initially, a substitution is in order.
Sec. 19, R. 119 – when it becomes manifest at anytime
before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense and the accused cannot
be convicted of the offense charged or any other
offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall
not be discharged if there appears good cause to
detain him. In such case, the court shall commit the
accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss
the original case upon the filing of the proper
information.
In criminal procedure, venue is jurisdictional. In civil
procedure, venue is procedural and may be waived.
Larranaga vs. CA, 287 SCRA 581 – a petition for a
change of venue of the PI should be addressed to the
Secretary of Justice who has control and supervision
over the conduct of PI which is a function of the
Executive Department and not the Judiciary.
Prosecution of Civil Actions
Criminal action = civil action (deemed instituted)
Except -
When offended party waives the civil action
When offended party reserves his right to institute
separate civil action
When offended party institutes a civil action prior to
the criminal action
Exception to the Exceptions
No reservation to file a separate civil action for -
violations of BP 22 shall be allowed. The criminal
action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action
cases before the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 4, RA 8249) 
The same is intended to prevent double recovery.
(Yakult Phils. Vs. CA, GR No. 91856, Oct. 5, 1990)
Only the civil liability arising from the crime charged
(cause of action arising from delict) as a felony is now
deemed instituted.
Counterclaims, cross-claims, third party complaints
are no longer allowed in a criminal proceeding. Any
claim which could have the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action.
Compromise on civil aspect
The offended party may compromise the civil aspect
of the crime, provided that it must be entered before
or during the litigation, and not after final judgment.
A compromise on the civil aspect is valid even if it
turns out to be unsatisfactorily either to one or both
of the parties.
Primacy of criminal action
After criminal action is filed, civil action not reserved
cannot be instituted until final judgment
If civil action is instituted before criminal action, the
pending civil action shall be suspended until final
judgment
Except –
-independent civil actions
-prejudicial questions
-consolidation
-civil action is not intended to enforce civil liability
arising from offense
Where the criminal case was dismissed before trial
because offended party executed an affidavit of
desistance, the civil action thereof is similarly
dismissed.
Prejudicial question
Is one which arises in a case, the resolution of which
is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein
and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal
PQ may be raised during the PI or in court before the
prosecution rests its case
Suspension of the criminal case due to a PQ is only a
procedural matter, and is subject to a waiver by virtue
of prior acts of the accused
There is no PQ where one is administrative and the
other is civil
A PQ is based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused
The petition to suspend shall be filed in the same
criminal action at any time before prosecution rests
Elements
The civil action must be instituted PRIOR to criminal
action
Civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action
The resolution of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (RULE 112) 
- an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there
is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the respondent
is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
trial. 
Gen. Rule: Preliminary investigation is required
Exceptions:
Penalty is at most 4 years, 2 months
when accused was lawfully arrested without a
warrant (Sec. 7, Rule 112) - INQUEST
Purposes
To determine if a crime has been committed
(Mercado vs. CA, GR No. 109036, July 5, 1995)
To protect accused from the inconvenience of
defending himself unnecessarily when probability of
his guilt can be ascertained summarily
To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and
expensive pubic trial (Rodis vs Sandiganbayan, GR
Nos. 71404-09 Oct. 26, 1988)
To protect the state from having to conduct useless
and expensive trials (Tandoc vs. Resultan, GR No. L-
69210, July 5, 1989.
PI: Personal statutory right
The right to p.i. is a personal right covered by statute
and may be waived expressly or by implication. It is
not merely procedural but a substantive right
included in the due process law. (Go vs. CA, GR No.
101837, Feb. 11, 1992)
P.I. deemed waived:
Failure to claim it before accused pleaded
His silence
Failure to request it within 5 days from the time he
learns of the filing of complaint or information (in
inquest cases)
Probable cause
Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan , GR No. 108251, Jan. 31,
1996 – the term does not mean “actual and positive
cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus,
a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry
into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that an act
or omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of
evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.
Webb vs. De Leon (247 SCRA 652)
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not a crime
has been committed and was committed by the
suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and
definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely
binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a
pronouncement of guilt.
No fixed formula for p.c.
Fernando vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 96182, Aug. 19,
1992 – there is no general formula or fixed rue for the
determination of probable cause, since the same must
be decided in light of conditions obtaining in given
situations and its existence depends to a large degree
upon the finding or opinion of the investigating
prosecutor conducting the investigation. However,
such a finding should not disregard the facts before
the investigating prosecutor nor run counter to the
clear dictates of reason.
Sound discretion of prosecutor
The institution of a criminal action depends upon the
sound discretion of the prosecutor. He may or may
not file the complaint or information, follow or not
follow that presented by the offended party,
according to whether the evidence, in his opinion, is
sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
Sound discretion of prosecutor
Venus vs. Desierto, 198 SCRA 196 – the approach of
the courts to the quashing of criminal charges
necessarily differs from the way a prosecutor would
handle exactly the same question – a court faced with
a 50/50 proposition of guilt or innocence always
decides in favor of innocence, while a prosecutor,
conscious that he represents the offended party, may
decide to eave the problem to the discretion of the
court.
Procedure of p.i.
Filing of complaint accompanied by the affidavits
and supporting documents which must be executed
underoath
Within 10 days after the filing, the investigating
officer shall either dismiss or issue subpoena
If subpoena is issued, respondent shall submit
counter-affidavit within 10 days from receipt
Clarificatory hearing (optional), within 10 days
where issues are joined
Resolution
Respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to
dismiss in lieu of counter-affidavit. The respondent
has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the
complainant may present.
Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review
Determination of investigating prosecutor
Determination of investigating prosecutor is
RECOMMENDATORY, which may be reversed or
modified
Where the recommendation is dismissal but his
findings is reversed on the ground that a probable
cause exists, the city/provincial prosecutor himself
may file or direct another assistant to file the
corresponding information, without need of another
preliminary investigation.
INQUEST
- is an informal and summary investigation
conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases
involving persons arrested and detained without the
benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for
the purpose of determining whether or not said
persons should remain under custody and
correspondingly be charged in court.
COMMENCEMENT
Upon receipt of inquest prosecutor of the following
documents:
Affidavit of arrest
Investigation report
Sworn statements of complainants or witnesses
Other supporting evidence gathered by police in the
course of investigation
Determination of the arrest
The inquest prosecutor shall first determine if the
arrest of the detained person was made in accordance
with sec. 5 R. 113 which provide that arrests without a
warrant may be effected.
For this purpose, the inquest prosecutor may
summarily examine the arresting officers on the
circumstances surrounding the arrest or
apprehension of the detained person.
Probable cause in inquest
People vs. Tudtud, GR No. 144037, Sept. 26, 2003 –
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion that the person to be arrested is about to
commit or is attempting to commit a crime, or is in
the act of committing a crime, or has committed a
crime, either in the presence or without the presence
of the arresting officer.
Where arrest of detained person not
properly effected
Recommend release of arrested person
Prepare a resolution indicating the reasons for action
taken; and
Forward to the prosecutor general/city/provincial
prosecutor together with record of case
If release is approved but evidence
warrants the conduct of p.i.
Serve the order of rlease on l.e.o. having custody
Direct said officer to serve to detainee subpoena or
notice of p.i., together with copies of complaint,
affidavits and other supporting evidence
Where arrest was properly effected
Detainee shall be asked if he desires to avail of p.i.,
and if he does, with assistance of counsel, shall
execute a waiver of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code
The p.i. may be conducted by the inquest prosecutor
or by any other prosecutor to whom the case may be
assigned, which investigation shall be terminated
within 15 days from its inception
Inquest proper
Where detainee does not opt for p.i. or otherwise
refuses to execute a waiver, the inquest prosecutor shall
proceed with the conduct of inquest, notwithstanding
the absence of counsel, by examining the sworn
statements of complainant and witnesses
If there exists probable cause, prepare resolution with
information.
If inquest falls on RSP, where no bail is required,
inquest prosecutor shall recommend release of arrested
person and prepare information for filing.
Inquest proper
If no probable cause, recommend release of detainee
and prepare resolution indicating the reasons for the
action taken
Inquest must be terminated within the period
prescribed under Art. 125 of the RPC, however –
 the means of communication
Hour of arrest
Other circumstances, i.e. availability of clerk of court,
availability of judge, the fact that govt offices close at
5 pm
Important matters -
Pp vs. Figueroa 27 SCRA 1239 – after filing of the info
in court without p.i., the accused, may, within 5 days
from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a p.i. with
the same right to adduce evidence in his defense
The conduct of an inquest should never be initiated
in the absence of an affidavit of arrest
Rule 113 - Arrest
Is the taking of a person into custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of a
crime;
Since arrest involves a curtailment of a basic natural
right, it is generally necessary that a warrant of arrest
for the seizure of an individual be issued by the
proper authority.
Protected by the Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2, Bill of
Rights
Pp vs. Joson 46 Phil 381 – when accused voluntarily
appears after a complaint in a criminal action is filed
against him, and gives bond for his appearance at any
time he may be called, no arrest is necessary.
Voluntary appearance relieves the necessity for an
actual arrest.
Modes of arrest
Arrest by virtue of a warrant
Arrest without a warrant under exceptional
circumstances as may be provided by statute (Rule 113,
sec. 5)
Warrant of arrest
Issued by a judge upon a probable cause determined
by him, after examining under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing a person to be seized.
It is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested,
or by his submission to the custody of the person making
the arrest. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used
in making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be
subjected to a greater restraint that is necessary for his
detention. (R.113, s. 2)
Essential requisites of a valid warrant
a) Issued upon probable cause
b) Determined personally by the judge
c) After evaluation of prosecutor’s report and the evidence
adduced during the preliminary investigation (Soliven
vs. Makasiar, GR No. L-82585, Nov. 14, 1988)
d) The warrant must particularly describe the person to be
arrested
e) In connection with a specific offense or crime
N.B.
A warrant of arrest has no expiry date. It remains valid until
arrest is effected or warrant is lifted. (Manangan vs. CFI,
GR No. 82760, Aug. 30, 1990) and (Pp vs. Givera, GR No.
132159, Jan. 18, 2001)
Corollary to the principle that the judge cannot be
compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she
deems that there is no probable cause for doing so is
the rule that he should not override the public
prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold
an accuse for trial, on the ground that the evidence
presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest
warrant was insufficient. (PP vs. Court of Appeals, 301
SCRA 475)
Remedy for warrants improperly issued
- Petition to quash (Alimpoos vs. CA, GR No. L-27331, July
30, 1981)
Posting of bail does not bar one from questioning illegal
arrest (sec. 26, R. 114)
When warrant of arrest not necessary -
A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is
already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued
by the municipal trial court in accordance with par.
(b) of Rule Rule 112, sec. 6, or if the information was
filed under sec. 7, of same Rule, or if offense penalized
by fine only.
Execution of warrant
The head of office to whom the warrant of arrest was
delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be
executed within 10 days from receipt. Within 10 days
after the expiration period, the officer to whom it was
assigned shall make a report to the judge who issued
the warrant. In case of failure to execute the warrant,
he shall state the reason therefor.
Time of making arrest
May be made on any day at any time if the day or
night; even on a Sunday. This is justified by the
necessity of preserving the public peace.
May be made anywhere, even on a private property or
in a house. This is applicable both where the arrest is
under a warrant and valid warrantless arrest.
Citizen’s arrest refers to arrest effected by a private
person.
Officer making the arrest may summon assistance.
Officer has the right to break into building or
enclosure
Warrantless Arrest (Rule 113,
sec. 5)
When in his PRESENCE, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it;
A prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment where
he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
(see also sec. 13). (
Warrantless Arrest (Rule 113,
sec. 5)
Where a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or
is rescued ;
By the bondsman for the purpose of surrendering the
accused
Where the accused attempts to leave without permission
of the court
In Flagranti Delicto Arrests
The accused is apprehended at the very moment he is
committing or attempting to commit or has just
committed an offense in the presence of the arresting
officer.
Pp vs. Evaristo, GR No. 93828, Dec. 11, 1992
NB:
Personal knowledge must be based upon “probable
cause” which means “an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion.”
Posadas vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 131492, Sept. 29, 2000
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the
absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense is based on actual
facts.
A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on
probable cause coupled with good faith on the part of
the peace officer’s making the arrest.
Elements:
The person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer.
PRESENCE does not only require that the arresting person
sees the offense, but also when he “hears the disturbance
created thereby AND proceeds at once to the scene.”
The behavior or conduct of the person to be arrested
must be clearly indicative of a criminal act. If there is
no outward indication at all that calls for an arrest,
the suspect cannot be validly apprehended under par.
(a), sec. 5, Rule 113, notwithstanding a tip from an
informant that he would at the time be undertaking a
felonious enterprise. (PP vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 721)
Buy-bust operations
Pp. vs. Juatan, GR No. 1043376, Aug. 20, 1996
A form of entrapment which has been repeatedly
accepted to be valid means of arresting violators of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. The violator is caught in
flagrate delicto and the police officers conducting the
operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to
apprehend the violator and to search him for anything
that may have been part of or used in the commission
of the crime.
Hot Pursuit Arrests
Offense have been committed. Pp vs. Ramos, GR No.
85401-02, June 7, 1990 - the rule now is the
indubitable existence of a crime is not necessary to
justify a warrantless arrest.
Offense JUST been committed. Go vs. CA, GR No.
101837, Feb. 11, 1992 – interval between the actual
commission of the crime and the arvival of the
arresting officer must be brief.
Probable cause based on personal knowledge.
While the law enforcers may not actually witness the
execution of acts constituting the offense, they must
have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after
the commission. They should know for a fact that a
crime was committed. And they must also perceive
acts exhibited by the person to be arrested, indicating
that he perpetrated the crime. Mere intelligence
information will not suffice.
Probable cause means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the offense, is based on actual facts
i.e. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong
in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt
of the person to be arrested. (PP vs. Doria, 301
SCRA 675) A reasonable suspicion therefore must
be founded on probable cause, coupled with good
faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest.
Plain View Doctrine
Requisites:
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence
has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is
inadvertent;
It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item
he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband
or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial
intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye
and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
Rules on illegality of arrest
An accused who enters his plea of NOT guilty and
participates in the trial waives the illegality of the
arrest. PP vs. Macam, GR Nos. L-91011-12, Nov. 24,
1994 – objection to the illegality must be raised before
arraignment, otherwise it is deemed waived, as the
accused has voluntarily submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Illegality of warrantless arrest may be cured by filing
an information in court and the subsequent issuance
by the judge of a warrant of arrest.
Rules on illegality of arrest
Once a person has been duly charged in court, he
may no longer question his detention by petition for
habeas corpus; his remedy is to quash the information
and/or the warrant of arrest.
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 specified by the Rules. It may be corporate
surety, property, cash deposit or recognizance.
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. (Rule 114, sec. 3)
Purposes
To relieve an accused for the rigors of imprisonment
until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at
the trial. (Almeda vs. Villaluz, GR No. L-31665, Aug. 6,
1975).
To honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt
is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
To enable him to prepare his defense without being
subjected to punishment prior to conviction.
Bail is available only to persons in custody of the law. A
person is in the custody of law when he has been either
arrested or otherwise deprived of his freedom or when
he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction
of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
(Dinapol vs. Baldado, AM No. 92-898, Aug. 5, 1993).
All persons except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of
guilt is strong, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties or
be released on recognizance. The right to bail shall bot
be impaired when when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. (Art. 13, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as
a matter of right before conviction of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. After conviction, bail is
discretionary. If penalty exceeds 6 years, bail shall
be denied if accused is a recidivist, quasi-
recidivist, habitual delinquent, or has previously
escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence,
committed the offense while on probation, parole
or conditional pardon, probability of flight, or
undue risk he may commit another crime.
Forms of bail
Corporate surety
Property bond
Cash bond
Recognizance
BAIL WHEN NOT REQUIRED
When a person has been in custody for a period equal
to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment
punishable, he shall be released immediately without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial of the case. If
the maximum penalty is destierro, accused shall be
released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment.
Conditions of the bail
Undertaking shall be effective upon approval and
unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages
until promulgation of judgment of the RTC
irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in
or appealed to it;
The accused shall appear before the proper courts
whenever so required;
The failure of the accused to appear at the trial
without justification despite due notice shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to present thereat. Trial
may proceed in absentia.
If the accused presents his notice of appeal, the trial
court will order the accused to be taken into custody
in the absence of a new bail bond on appeal duly
approved by the court. If the accused does not appeal,
the bondsman must produce the accused on the 15th
day from promulgation of sentence for service of his
sentence.
No additional conditions can be imposed.
Almeda vs. Villaluz – the court however may impose
other conditions in granting bail where the likelihood
of the accused jumping bail or committing other
harm to citizenry is feared.
Bandoy vs. Judge of CFI GR No. L-5200, March 11,
1909 –the court however may not impose additional
obligations upon the bondsman than those provided
by law. The obligation imposed upon the bondsmen
cannot be greater nor of a different character than
those imposed upon the accused.
Gimenez vs. Nazareno GR No. L-37933, April 15, 1988
-A detention prisoner who escaped waives his right to
cross-examination.
By filing a fake bail bond, an appellant is deemed to
have escaped from confinement during the pendency
of his appeal, his appeal should be dismissed.
Manotoc Sr. vs. CA, GR No. L-63409 May 30, 1986 – bail
in effect operates as a valid restriction on his right to
travel.
Guidelines for amount of bail
Financial ability of the accused to give bail
Nature and circumstances of the offense
Penalty of the offense charged
Character and reputation of accused
Age and health of accused
Weight of evidence against accused
Probability of accused appearing at trial
Forfeiture of other bail
Fact that accused was a fugitive
Pendency of other cases
A warrant of arrest without recommendation for bail
is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused
to bail unless the accused is charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher and the
evidence of guilt is strong. (Parada vs. Veneracio, AM
No. RTJ-96-1353);
In all instances, reasonable notice of hearing is
required to be given to the prosecutor, or at least he
must be asked for his recommendation (Chin vs.
Judge Gustilo, AM No. RTJ-94-1243, Aug. 11, 1995).
Forfeiture of bail
Within 30 days from the failure of accused to appear in
person as required the bondmen must:
Produce the body of accused or give reason for his
non-production;
Explain why the accused did not appear when
required
Failing in these requisites, a judgment shall be
rendered against the bondsman, jointly and severally,
for the amount of bail.
Cancellation of bail
Upon application of the bondsmen with due notice to
the prosecutor, upon surrender of accused or proof of
his death;
Upon acquittal
Upon dismissal of the case
Execution of judgment
No bail shall be granted after judgment, if the case
has become final, even if continued confinement of
accused would be detrimental or dangerous to his
health. The remedy would be to submit him to
medical treatment or hospitalization.
Except – when he applies for probation before
commencing to serve sentence, the application for
probation must be filed within the period of
perfecting an appeal. Such application operates as a
waiver of the right to appeal.
Rights of the accused (Rule 115)
Mejia vs. Pamaran, GR No. L-57469, April 15, 1988 –
elements of criminal due process
Accused must have been heard in court of competent
jurisdiction
 Proceeded against under the orderly process of law
Has been given notice and opportunity to be heard
Judgment was awarded within the authority of a
constitutional law
Rights of accused at the trial
to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt 
to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him
to be present and defend in person and by counsel at
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment

You might also like