You are on page 1of 9

FELICIANO VS.

PASICOLAN
This is a petition for writ of mandamusto compel the respondent Judge to decide on the merits of a
motion filed by the petitioner inwhich he asks that the Court fix at P10,000.000 the amount of thebail for
his liberty pending trial.
acts!
Petitioner was charged with the crime of kidnapping. "hen hefound out that an #nformation had been
filed and that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him, he went into hiding. $islawyer, at the
instance of his wife, fined a motion asking that the Court fix the amount of the bond at P10% for
the petitioner&s release pending trial, but the Pro'incial iscal of Pampangaopposed the motion on the
ground that the filing was prematurebecause the petitioner had been arrested. The respondent
Judgedismissed the motion on the ground that the petitioner doesnot ha'e the right to ask for the
court to admit him to bailpending his arrest or surrender.
The petitioner contends that as, under the Constitution, (allpersons shall before con'iction be bailable by
sufficient sureties,except those charged with capital offenses when e'idence of guilt is
strong,( )rticle ###, *ection 1, paragraph +1,-, Constitution of the Philippines, and that the words (all
persons( used in saidconstitutional pro'ision ha'e been interpreted to mean (allpersons, without
distinction, whether formally charged or not yet so charged with any criminal offense(
.#**./! "01 the 2udge erred in not granting the petition foradmission to bail.$/3456)T#0! 1o.There is
no 7uestion as to the soundness of the rule in'oked by petitioner. *uch is the law in this 2urisdiction. 8ut,
the rule issub2ect to the limitation that the person applying for admission tobail should be in the
custody of the law, or otherwise depri'ed of his liberty.#n the case of
$erras Teehankee 's. 6o'ira, 9: Phil. ,;<,
this Court held!xxx )ccording to this pro'ision, the general rule is that any person, before being
con'icted of any criminaloffense, shall be bailable, except when he is chargedwith a capital offense and
the e'idence of his guilt isstrong.
0f course, only those persons who ha'e beeneither arrested, detained or otherwise depri'ed of their
liberty will e'er ha'e occasion to seek thebenefits of said pro'ision.
8ut in order that a personcan in'oke the constitutional precept, it is not necessary that he should
wait until a formalcomplaint or information is filed against him.
romthe moment he is placed under arrest, detention orrestraint by the officers of the law, he can claim
thisguarantee of the 8ill of 6ights, and this right he retains unless and until he is charged with a
capitaloffense and e'idence of his guilt is strong.
)nd in the case of =anigbas 's. 3una, :> 0.?. 1<0:, it was held!xxx the right to bail
only accrues when a person isarrested or depri'ed of his liberty.
The purpose of bailis to secure one@s release and it would beincongruous to grant bail to one who is
free.
Thus,Abail is the security re7uired and gi'en for the release of a person who is in the custody of the
law.@"ithout surrendering himself, he filed the motion in which heasks that the court fix the amount of the
bail bond for his releasepending trial. #t is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is a freeman and is under the
2urisprudence not entitled to admission to bail.
VILLASEOR VS. HON. ABAO, ET ALSANCHEZ, September 29, 196
1)T.6/
06#?#1)3 )CT#01 in the *upreme Court. Certiorari.
)CT*
BPetitioner, a mere go'ernment employee, earningbut a monthly salary, of P>10.00,
and the solebreadwinner of a family of fi'e, was charged with themurder of a 8oac
police sergeant. $e was admittedto a P,0k bail which was reduced to P<0k.
Thepetitioner on =ay >C posted a property bond and wasset at pro'isional liberty.B
$owe'er, respondent Pro'incial iscal amended theinformation, now accusing the
petitioner with D4irect)ssault .pon an )gent of a Person in )uthority with=urder(
before the arraignment on the murdercharge. *o on )ugust 9, respondent 2udge
cancelledthe petitioner&s bond and ordered his immediatearrest.B0n *eptember C
upon petitioner&s motion toreconsider, the respondent 2udge resol'ed to
admitpetitioner to bail pro'ided he puts up a cash bond of P,0k.B0n *eptember 1:, on
petitioner&s motion thatoriginal bond pre'iously gi'en be reinstated,respondent 2udge
resol'ed to fix (the bond anew inreal property in the amount of P,0,000, but to
beposted only by residents of the pro'ince of =arindu7ue actually staying, therein(
with propertieswhich (must be in the possession and ownership of said residents for
fi'e years.(B0n 0ctober 1, petitioner filed a prayer for prelimin2unction to *C, seeking
to set aside respondent 2udge orders of )ugust 9, *eptember C and 1:, andto
reinstate the bail bond appro'ed on =ay >C+original bond-, charging the respondent
2udge of ha'ing acted w5o and5or in excess of his 2urisdictionand w5gra'e abuse of
discretion, and w5 'iolation of the Consti and the 60C in issuing the disputed ordersB
0ct ;! the Court issued a writ of preliminaryin2unction upon a P1k bond.B1o' :! *C
allowed continuation of the proceedings of the criminal case to a'oid delay in its
prosecution.
#**./*
1. "01 the orders of )ugust 9 and C should be setaside>. "01 T$/ P,0% bond
fixed by respondent 2udgetransgress the constitutional in2unction that(+e-xcessi'e bail
shall not be re7uiredE;. "01 the condition that the property bond beposted only by
(residents of the pro'ince of =arindu7ue actually staying therein( is within thepower
of the respondent 2udge<. "01 the re7uirement that properties to be offeredas bond
must be (in the possession and ownership of the sureties for at least fi'e yearsF is
within thepower of the respondent 2udge
$/341. 10 1//4
6atio
) rule of ancient respectability is that it is notthe function of a court of 2ustice to furnish
answers topurposeless 7uestions that no longer exist.
6easoning
The said orders were replaced by thelast order of *eptember 1:, 1C,<, by 'irtue of
whichthe cash bond re7uired was re'erted back toproperty bond. The two orders of
)ugust 9 and*eptember C, 1C,< thus became functus offcio.
>. 10
6atio
the principal factor considered, to thedetermination of which most other factors
aredirected, is the probability of the appearance of theaccused, or of his flight to a'oid
punishment.
6easoning
?uidelines in fixing bail! +1- ability of theaccused to gi'e bailG +>-- nature of the
offenseG +;-penalty for the offense chargedG +<- character andreputation of the
accusedG +:- health of the accusedG+,- character and strength of the e'idenceG
+9-probability of the accused appearing at trialG +H-forfeiture of other bondsG +C-
whether the accusedwas a fugiti'e from 2ustice when arrestedG and +10- if the
accused is under bond for appearance at trial inother cases.B
*ection 1, 6ule 11<, 6ules of Court +definitionof bail-!
(the security re7uired and gi'en for therelease of a person who is in the custody of
the law,that he will appear before any court in which hisappearance may be re7uired
as stipulated in the bailbond or recogniIance.(BCircular <9 of the 4epartment of
Justice, reiteratedin Circular <H, directed prosecuting attorneys torecommend bail at
the rate of P>,000.00 per year of imprisonment, corresponding to the medium
periodof the penalty prescribed for the offense charged,unless circumstances warrant
a higher penalty. $ere,petitioner is charged with a capital offense, directassault upon
an agent of a person in authority withmurder. ) complex crime, it may call for
theimposition of capital punishment.
;. J/*
6atio
8ondsmen in criminal cases, residing outsideof the Philippines, are not within the
reach of theprocesses of its courts.B 8ail is gi'en to secure appearance of the
accused. #f bondsmen reside in far away places, e'en if withinthe Philippines, the
purpose of bail may befrustrated.
6easoning
"eighing as hea'ily against petitioner@scase is the fact that a reading of his petition
fails of an a'erment that the re7uisite exacted thatbondsmen be residents of and
actually staying in=arindu7ue would cause him pre2udice. The burdenof his
arguments solely is that such a condition runscounter to the rules of court +*ection C,
6ule 11<,6ules of Court 1 -.Breason why respondent 2udge issued such condition!it is
hard to send notices to people outside of thepro'ince through registered mail
accompanied byreturn cards which in many instances ha'e not beenrecei'ed in court
when trial comes and when theparties fail to appear, there is no way of
knowingwhether the notices ha'e been duly recei'edGtherefore, he cannot order the
confiscation of thebond and the arrest of the accused because he is notsure whether
the bondsmen ha'e been duly notifiedGthat sending telegrams to people outside
thepro'ince is costly, and the court cannot afford toincur much expenses.
<. J/*
6easoning
Circular > of the *ecretary of Justice,addressed, amongst others, to Judges of
irst#nstance recites that it had been brought to theattention of the 4epartment of
Justice that in certainpro'inces, unscrupulous persons who are spuriousland owners
ha'e been accepted as sureties. The*ecretary then suggested that (+1-t may be a
goodpolicy not to accept as bail bonds real properties notco'ered by certificates of
title unless they ha'e beendeclared for taxation purposes in fa'or of the
personoffering them as bond for at least fi'e +:- years.(Brationale of Circular >! pre'ent
the commission of frauds in connection with the posting of personal bailbonds and to
protect the interests of the?o'ernment.B the order of *eptember 1:, 1C,< is to
beunderstood as excluding properties co'ered by Torrens titles from the re7uirement
that properties tobe offered as bond must be (in the possession andownership of the
sureties for at least fi'e years.
4isposition
"ith the obser'ations heretoforead'erted to, we 'ote to dismiss the petition
forcertiorari, and to dissol'e the writ of preliminaryin2unction issued herein. Costs
against petitioner. *oordered
DEFENSORSANTIA!O VS. VAS"#EZ $21% SCRA 6&&' !.R. NOS. 992(99)' 2%
*AN 199&+
riday, ebruary 0,, >00C Posted by Coffeeholic "rites
3abels! Case 4igests, Political 3aw
F,-t./ )n information was filed against petitioner with the *andiganbayan for
'iolation of the )nti ?raft and Corrupt Practices )ct. The order of arrest was issued
with bail for release fixed at Php. 1:,000 so she filed a motion for acceptance of cash
bail bond. 0n the same day the *andiganbayan issued a resolution authoriIing the
petitioner to post cash bond which the later filed in the amount of Php.1:, 000. $er
arraignment was set, but petitioner asked for the cancellation of her bail bond and
that she be allowed pro'isional release on recogniIance. The *andiganbayan
deferred it. The *andiganbayan issued a hold departure order against petitioner, by
reason of the announcement she made that she would be lea'ing for the ..*. to
accept a fellowship a $ar'ard. #n the instant motion she submitted before the *.C.
she argues that her right to tra'el is impaired.
I..0e/ "hether or 1ot the petitioner&s right to tra'el is impaired.
He12/ The petitioner does not deny and as a matter of fact e'en made a public
statement, that she he e'ery intension of lea'ing the country to pursue higher studies
abroad. The court upholds the course of action of the *andiganbayan in taking 2udicial
notice of such fact of petitioners pal to go abroad and in thereafter issuing a sua
sponte the hold departure order is but an exercise of respondent court&s inherent
power to preser'e and to maintain effecti'eness of its 2urisdiction o'er the case and
the person of the accused.
)lso, the petitioner assumed obligations, when she posted bail bond. *he holds
herself amenable at all times to the orders and process of eth court. *he may legally
be prohibited from lea'ing the country during the pendency of the case. +=anotoc '.
C.).-
34r,52, 6.. T014,7 !.R. 8 19(%6&, 3,r-: &1, 2))6
acts! 0n =ar. 1CC,, > burnt cada'ers were disco'ered in 6amon, #sabela which
were later identified as the bodies of Kicente 8auIon and /liIer Tuliao, son of the
pri'ate respondent Kirgilio Tulio who is now under the witness protection program.
> informations for murder were filed against the : police officer including *P0>
=aderal in 6TC of *antiago City. The 'enue was later transferred to =anila. 6TC
=anila con'icted all the accused and sentenced them > counts of reclusion perpetua
except *P0> =aderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. .pon
automatic re'iew, the *C ac7uitted the four accused on the ground of reasonable
doubt.
#n *ept. 1CCC, =aderal was arrested. $e executed a sworn confession and identified
the herein petitioner =iranda and < others responsible for the death of the 'ictims.
6espondent Tuliao then filed a criminal complaint for murder against the petitioners.
)cting Presiding Judge Tumalian issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners and
*P0> =aderal.
Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary in'estigation, to
rein'estigate, and to recall or 7uash the warrant of arrest. #n the hearing of the urgent
motion, Judge Tumalian noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint order
denying the said urgent motion on the ground that since the court did not ac7uire
2urisdiction o'er their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court. The
petitioners appealed the resolution of the Public prosecutor to the 40J.
The new Presiding Judge named Judge )nghad took o'er the case and issued a
Joint 0rder re'ersing the Joint 0rder of Judge Tumalian. $e also ordered the
cancellation of the warrant of arrest. 6espondent Tulia filed a petition for certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition with a prayer for T60 seeking to en2oin Judge )nghad
from further proceeding of the case and seeking to nullify the Joint 0rders of the said
Judge. The *C issued a resolution granting the prayer. 1otwithstanding the said
resolution, Judge )nghad issued a Joint 0rder dismissing the information against the
petition.
6espondent Tuliao filed a motion to cite Judge )nghad in contempt. The *C referred
the said motion to the C). The C) rendered the assailed decision granting the petition
and ordering the reinstatement of the criminal cases in the 6TC of *antiago City as
well as the issuance of warrant of arrest. $ence, this petition.
#ssue! "hether or not an accused cannot seek any 2udicial relief if he does not submit
his person to the 2urisdiction of the court
$eld! Petition is dismissed and cost against the petitioners.
#t has been held that an accused cannot seek 2udicial relief is he does not submit his
person to the 2urisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction o'er the accused can be ac7uired
either through compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest or through his 'oluntary
appearance, such as when he surrender to the police or to the court. #t is only when
the court has already ac7uired 2urisdiction o'er his person that an accused may
in'oke the processes of the court. *ince, petitioner were not arrested or otherwise
depri'ed of their liberty, they cannot seek 2udicial relief.

CORTES VS CATRAL2%9 SCRA 1 ;199%<
)CT*! Cortes filed a complaint against Judge Catral for grantingbail without hearing.1.

Catral allegedly granted bail in two murder cases, acrime that is supposedly not bailable-
without hearing.Catral says!#n one of them, the case was frustratedhomicide, and the prosecutor
recommended bail of >00%, plus the circumstantial e'idence were weak.#n the case of People '.
6odrigo 8umanglag, CriminalCase 0HBH,, for murder, the in7uest 2udge issued
awarrant of arrest for the accused with no bailrecommended. "hen the case was ele'ated to
the6egional Trial Court upon information filed by thepro'incial prosecutor, the information made
nomention of a bailbond. #n the hearing of the petition todetermine whether or not the e'idence of guilt
isstrong, the fiscal opted not to introduce e'idence andrecommended bail in the sum of P>00,000.00
instead.
6espondent 2udge Dacting on the said recommendation
and again guided by the pro'ision of *ection C,)dministrati'e Circular 1>BC< in con2unction with
thee'idence extant on the record appro'ed the recommendation of Prosecutor )polinar
Carrao.F )duplicate copy of trial prosecutor )polinar Carrao&s letter dated *eptember
;, 1CC, addressed to thepro'incial prosecutor 6omeo *ac7uing was presentedby the respondent
to dispro'e the accusation that hegranted bail to the accused without conducting anyhearing.
>.Catral allegedly reduced bailbond for an illegalpossession of firearms case from 1H0%
+recommendedby prosecutor- to ;0% without hearing.Catral says! bailbond recommended was 1H0%.
accusedfiled for reduction and there was no opposition fromprosecutor.
;8arangay Captain 1ilo de 6i'era with a homicide casewas granted with a bailbond of
P1<,H00.00 by Judge*egundo Catral. The amount is too low. #t is becausethis 1ilo de 6i'era is
another goon of Julio 8ong4ecierto.Catral says! he was acting on the recommendation of the0#C
pro'incial prosecutor and mindful of the guidelinesin fixing a reasonable amount of bailbond
coupled bythe fact that the e'idence on record is merelycircumstantial and there was no eyewitness to
thecommission of crime granted bailbond in the sum of P1<,H00.00.
<.Jimmy *iriban the right hand man of Julio L8ong&
4icierto was sued for concubinage and con'icted byJudge $erminio del Castillo in =TC. Jimmy
*iribanappealed and it was ele'ated to the 6TC 8ranch 0H, thesala of Judge *egundo Catral.
Judge *egundo Catralac7uitted Jimmy *iriban, rumors in )parri spread that the wife of Judge
*egundo Catral went to Jimmy
*iriban&s house to get the en'elop

#**./! "01 the allegations of the complainant wouldwarrant the imposition of administrati'e sanction
against respondent 2udge
.$/3456)T#0! J/*.8ail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case.The amount fixed
should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply
with theconstitutional pro'ision that bail should not be excessi'e.Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right
or of discretion,reasonable notice of hearing is re7uired to be gi'en to theprosecutor or fiscal or at least he
must be asked for hisrecommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the 2udge isre7uired to take
into account a number of factors such as the applicant&s character and reputation, forfeiture of
other bonds or whether he is a fugiti'e from 2ustice."hen the accused is charged with an offense
punishable bydeath, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the 2udge ismandated to conduct a
hearing, whether summary orotherwise in the discretion of the court, not only to take intoaccount the
guidelines set forth in *ection C, 6ule 11< of the6ules of Court, but primarily to determine the
existence of strong e'idence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused.6espondent 2udge, in two
instances, granted bail to anaccused charged with murder, without ha'ing conductedany hearing as to
whether the e'idence of guilt against theaccused is strong.#n a crime of murder. The pro'incial prosecutor
recommendedthe sum of P>00,000.00 as bailbond for each accused. Therecords do not
re'eal whether a hearing was actually conductedon the application
for bail although respondent 2udge implies that there was one, stating that Dacting on this
recommenda
tion of thepro'incial prosecutor and taking into account the guidelinesprescribed in *ection C of
)dministrati'e Circular 1>BC<, thecourt issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the amount of P
>00,000.00 for the pro'isional liberty of each of the accused.F *ubse7uently, counsel for
accused )hmed 4uerme filed a motionfor reduction of bail. The DhearingF of the motion was
conducted on )ugust >1, 1CC: with the prosecution, not ha'ing interposedany opposition, and
submitting the resolution of the motion tothe sound discretion of the court instead. 6espondent 2udge
thenissued an order granting a reduced bailbond of P:0,000.00 for accused )hmed
4uerme inasmuch as Dthe e'idence was not sostrong to warrant the fixation of said
amount.F The order granting the reduced bailbond, howe'er, did not contain asummary of the
e'idence for the prosecution.#n another murder case, after conducting a preliminaryin'estigation, the
in7uest 2udge issued a warrant of the arrest forthe accused with no bail recommended. "hen
the case wasele'ated to the 6egional Trial Court, the information made nomention of a bailbond.
Conse7uently, accused through counsel filed a petition for bail. #n the hearing of the petition todetermine
whether or not the e'idence of guilt against theaccused was strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce
e'idenceand recommended the sum of P>00,000.00 instead. 6espondent 2udge, Dacting on said
recommendation and again guided by the pro'ision of *ection C, )dministrati'e Circular 1>BC<
incon2unction
with the e'idence extant on record,F issued an order granting bail to the accused in the sum
of P>00,000.00. .nable topost the said bond, accused through counsel filed a motion toreduce bail. #n
the course of the hearing of the petition, the publicprosecutor manifested that he had no ob2ection to the
sum of P:0,000.00 as bail for the accused. 6espondent 2udge, then Dguided by the
factual setting and the supporting e'idence extant on recordF reduced the bail bond
from P>00,000.00 toP:0,000.00 as recommended by the prosecutor. 0nce again, theorder
granting the bail of P>00,000.00, as well as the reduced bailbond of P:0,000.00, did not
contain a summary of the e'idencepresented by the prosecution.the 2udge is mandated to conduct a
hearing e'en in cases wherethe prosecution chooses to 2ust file a comment or lea'e theapplication of bail
to the sound discretion of the court. ) hearingis likewise re7uired if the prosecution refuses to adduce
e'idencein opposition to the application to grant and fix bail. Theimportance of a hearing has been
emphasiIed in not a few caseswherein the court ruled that, e'en if the prosecution refuses toadduce
e'idence or fails to interpose an ob2ection to the motionfor bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct
a hearing orask searching 7uestions from which it may infer the strength of
the e'idence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.F The reason for this is plain.
#nasmuch as the determination of whether or not the e'idence of guilt against the accused is strongis a
matter of 2udicial discretion, #t may rightly be exercised onlyafter the e'idence is submitted
to the court at the hearing. *incethe discretion is directed to the weight of e'idence and sincee'idence
cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited orproduced before the court, it is ob'ious that a proper
exercise of 2udicial discretion re7uires that the e'idence of guilt besubmitted to the court, the petitioner
ha'ing the right of crossexamination and to introduce e'idence in his own rebuttal.The procedural lapse
of respondent 2udge is aggra'ated by thefact that e'en though the accused in Criminal Case 1o. 09B
H9<,People '. )hmed 4uerme, ha'e yet to be arrested, respondent already fixed bail in the sum of
P>00,000.00. 6espondent e'idently knew that the accused were still at large as he e'en hadto direct
their arrest in the same order where he simultaneouslygranted them bail. )t this 2uncture, there is a need
to reiterate thebasic principle that the right to bail can only be a'ailed of by aperson who is in custody of
the law or otherwise depri'ed of hisliberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to filea
petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
PEOPLE VS. 3ANALLO =)) SCRA 129 ;2))&<
)CT*! *pouses 6omeo 1abor and 3iliosa 1apay and their nineByear old daughter 6osaldiIa 1abor
tenanted and li'ed in acoconut plantation located in 8arangay *alugan, Camilig, )lbay. 6osaldiIa
helped in the household chores by washing the family&s dirty laundry e'ery *aturday at the
barangay reser'oir. The routeto the reser'oir was uninhabited. ?oing there was 7uite a longtrek. #t usually
took 6osaldiIa fifteen minutes to negotiate thegrassy path from the reser'oir to their house.#n 1CHC,
6omeo engaged the ser'ices of )lex =anallo, as coconut gatherer. )lex helped the 1abor couple
gather coconut produceonce a week.0ne day, in 1CC>, 6osaldiIa went to the reser'oir to wash
herclothes and to take a bath. 0n her way back home, =anallosuddenly appeared from the
bushes, grabbed her and raped her.)lex dressed up and warned her not to tell her parents,
brothersand sisters of the incident, otherwise, he would kill them all.6osaldiIa put on her
clothes and ran home. 6osaldiIa related toher mother what had happened to her.=edicoB3egal. Then
6osaldiIa and 3iliosa went back to the policestation and executed their respecti'e sworn statements.
)ninformation was filed with the 6egional Trial Court of 3egaspi City, charging )lex with rape.
1o bail was recommended for the pro'isional liberty of )lex.$e filed, on =ay H, 1CC>, a motion for bail
with no specific dateand time for the hearing thereof. .pon the filing of said motion,the /xecuti'e Judge
issued an order granting the motion andfixing his bail bond at P:0,000.00.
0n the same day, )lex posteda property bond which was immediately appro'ed by the court . )lex was
forthwith released from detention.)t his arraignment on June 19, 1CC>, )lex, duly assisted
bycounsel
de oficio, pleaded not guilty. Trial was set on June 1H,1CC>. The prosecution prayed the trial court to
cancel the bond of )lex considering that his petition for bail was granted without due hearing. $owe'er,
the trial court held in abeyance resolutionof the motion until after the prosecutor shall ha'e
presented itswitnesses on June 1H, 1CC>. The trial court stated that thee'idence to be adduced by the
prosecution would be its e'idence in )lex&s petition for bail and trial on the merits.
0n June 1H,1CC>, the trial court issued an order that )lex would remain freeon his bond until June >>,
1CC>, the date set for the hearing onhis petition for bail. $owe'er, )lex failed to attend the trial onsaid
date. The trial court issued and order for his arrest.$owe'er, )lex could no longer be
found at his address. #t wasonly six years thereafter, or on January >>, 1CCH, that he
wasarrested.$e denied raping 6osaldiIa and claimed that they were lo'ers. $ewas found guilty. +short
story 'ersion.-
#**./ +in the case-! "01 the trial court gra'ely erred incon'icting accusedBappellant not
on the basis of the strength of the prosecution&s e'idence but rather on the weakness of
the e'idence for the defense
$/3456)T#0! 10. /'en a cursory reading of the decision of thetrial court will readily show that it
con'icted appellant of thecrime charged in light of the testimony of 6osaldiIa and 4r. 3oriaBlorece and
the physical e'idence adduced by the prosecution.
The trial court considered appellant&s flight from the scene of the crime, his ha'ing 2umped
bail and for eluding arrest for six longyears as e'idence of his guilt for the crime charged8)#3B6/3)T/4
+copyBpaste-!The Court cannot write finis to this case without making of recordits concern and
displeasure at the egregious procedural lapse of the trial court in granting bail to appellant. #t bears
stressing that he was charged with rape punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. *ection :,
6ule 11< of the 1CH: 6ules of CriminalProcedure reads!*/C. :.
8urden of proof in 8ail application .M)t the hearing of anapplication for admission to bail filed by
any person who is incustody for the commission of an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua
to death, the prosecution has the burden of showingthat e'idence of guilt is strong. The e'idence
presented duringthe bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced at the
trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recallany witness for additional
examination unless the witness isdead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify.+please
see pre'ious case for the duties of the trial court inresol'ing a motion or petition for bail-#n this case, the
appellant filed his motion for bail on =ay H,1CC>. There was no specific date and time for the
hearing of saidmotion. )nd yet, on
the same day that the motion was filed,the trial court granted the said motion and fixed the bailbond for
the pro'isional liberty of the appellant in theamount of P:0,000.00 without any factual basis
thereforestated in the order
. /'en when the public prosecutor prayedthe court on June 19, 1CC>, for the cancellation of the
propertybond of the appellant on the ground that the trial court grantedhis motion for bail without e'en
affording the prosecution achance to be heard thereon and adduce its e'idence inopposition thereto, the
trial court held in abeyance resolutionthereof and e'en allowed the appellant to remain free on hisbond in
the amount of only P:0,000.00. Patently, the prosecutionwas depri'ed of its right to due process.) bail
application does not only in'ol'e the right of the accused totemporary liberty, but likewise the right of the
*tate to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerouselements. These two rights
must be balanced by a magistrate inthe scale of 2ustice, hence, the necessity for hearing to guide
hisexercise of 2urisdiction.
people 's nitcha B.10.14
Pe7p1e V.. *02>e D75,t7
19( SCRA 1&)
!.R. N7.%9269
*05e 9,1991
F,-t./
Pri'ate respondent and his coBaccused were charged of rebellion on 0ctober >, 1CH,
for acts committed before and after ebruary 1CH,. Pri'ate respondent filed with a
=otion to Nuash alleging that! +a- the facts alleged do not constitute an offenseG +b-
the Court has no 2urisdiction o'er the offense chargedG +c- the Court has no
2urisdiction o'er the persons of the defendantsG and +d- the criminal action or liability
has been extinguished. This was denied. =ay C, 1CH9 6espondent filed a petition for
bail, which was opposed that the respondent is not entitled to bail anymore since
rebellion became a capital offense under P4 1CC,, C<> and 1H;< amending )6T. 1;:
of 6PC. 0n : June 1CH9 the President issued /xecuti'e 0rder 1o. 1H9 repealing,
among others, P.4. 1os. 1CC,, C<> and 1H;< and restoring to full force and effect
)rticle 1;: of the 6e'ised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees.
Judge 4onato now granted the bail, which was fixed at P;0,000.00 and imposed a
condition that he shall report to the court once e'ery two months within the first ten
days of e'ery period thereof. Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for
reconsideration indirectly asking the court to deny bail to and to allow it to present
e'idence in support thereof considering the (ine'itable probability that the accused
will not comply with this main condition of his bail. #t was contended that!
1. The accused has e'aded the authorities for thirteen years and was an
escapee from detention when arrestedG +Chairman of CPPB1P)-
>. $e was not arrested at his residence as he had no known addressG
;. $e was using the false name (=anuel =ercado Castro( at the time of his
arrest and presented a 4ri'er@s 3icense to substantiate his false identityG
<. The address he ga'e (Panamitan, %awit, Ca'ite,( turned out to be also a
false addressG
:. $e and his companions were on board a pri'ate 'ehicle with a declared
owner whose identity and address were also found to be falseG
,. Pursuant to =inistry 0rder 1o. 1B) dated 11 January 1CH> , a reward of
P>:0,000.00 was offered and paid for his arrest.
This howe'er was denied. $ence the appeal.
I..0e/ "hether or 1ot the pri'ate respondent has the right to bail.
He12/ Jes. 8ail in the instant case is a matter of right. #t is absolute since the crime is
not a capital offense, therefore prosecution has no right to present e'idence. #t is only
when it is a capital offense that the right becomes discretionary. $owe'er it was
wrong for the Judge to change the amount of bail from ;0% to :0% without hearing the
prosecution.
6epublic )ct 1o. ,C,H appro'ed on >< 0ctober 1CC0, pro'iding a penalty of reclusion
perpetua to the crime of rebellion, is not applicable to the accused as it is not
fa'orable to him.

)ccused 'alidly wai'ed his right to bail in another case+petition for habeas corpus-.
)greements were made therein! accused to remain under custody, whereas his coB
detainees Josefina CruI and Jose =ilo Concepcion will be released immediately, with
a condition that they will submit themsel'es in the 2urisdiction of the court. *aid
petition for $C was dismissed. 8ail is the security gi'en for the release of a person in
custody of the law. /rgo, there was a wai'er. "e hereby rule that the right to bail is
another of the constitutional rights which can be wai'ed. #t is a right which is personal
to the accused and whose wai'er would not be contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals, or good customs, or pre2udicial to a third person with a right recogniIed
by law.
LAVIDES VS CA!.R. 1296%)Febr0,r? 1, 2)))
)CT*! =anolet 3a'ides was arrested on )pril ;, 1CC9 for childabuse under 6.). 1o. 9,10 +an act
pro'iding for strongerdeterrence and special protection against child abuse,exploitation and
discrimination, pro'iding penalties for its'iolation, and other purposes-. $is arrest was made without
awarrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. #t appears that on )pril ;, 1CC9, the
parents of complainant 3orelie*an =iguel reported to the police that their daughter, then
1,years old, had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation
that night at petitioner&s room at the =etropolitan $otel in 4iliman, NueIon City. )pparently,
this was not the first time the police recei'ed reports of petitioner&s acti'ities. "hen petitioner
opened the door, the police saw him with3orelie, who was wearing only a tBshirt and an
underwear,whereupon they arrested him. 8ased on the sworn statement of complainant and the
affida'its of the arresting officers, whichwere submitted at the in7uest, an information for 'iolation of )rt.###,
O:+b- of 6.). 1o. 9,10 was filed against petitioner.petitioner filed an (0mnibus =otion +1- or
Judicial4etermination of Probable CauseG +>- or the #mmediate 6eleaseof the )ccused .nlawfully
4etained on an .nlawful "arrantless)rrestG and +;- #n the /'ent of )d'erse 6esolution of the )bo'e
#ncident, $erein )ccused be )llowed to 8ail as a=atter of 6ight under the 3aw on "hich $e is
Charged.nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant,
3orelie *an =iguel, and bythree other minor children1o bail was recommended. 1onetheless, petitioner
filed separateapplications for bail in the nine cases.T6#)3 C0.6T! >. The accused is entitled to bail in all
the abo'eBentitled case. $e is hereby granted the right to post bail in theamount of PH0,000.00 for
each case or a total of PH00,000.00 forall the cases under the following conditions!a- The
accused shall not be entitled to a wai'erof appearance during the trial of these cases.$e shall and must
always be present at thehearings of these casesGb-
#n the e'ent that he shall not be able todo so, his bail bonds shall be automaticallycancelled and forfeited,
warrants for hisarrest shall be immediately issued and thecases shall proceed to trial in absentia
Gc- The holdBdeparture 0rder of this Court dated )pril 10, 1CC9 standsG andd-
)ppro'al of the bail bonds shall be madeonly after the arraignment to enable thisCourt to
immediately ac7uire 2urisdictiono'er the accusedG
Petitioner filed a motion to 7uash the informations against him.Pending resolution of his motion, he asked
the trial court tosuspend the arraignment scheduled on =ay >;, 1CC9. $e filed amotion in which he
prayed that the amounts of bail bonds bereduced to P<0,000.00 for each case and that the same be
doneprior to his arraignment.
the trial court, in separate orders, denied petitioner&s
motions toreduce bail bonds, to 7uash the informations, and to suspendarraignment. )ccordingly,
petitioner was arraigned during whichhe pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then
orderedhim released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of PH00,000.00, sub2ect to the
conditions in the =ay 1,, 1CC9 orderand the (holdBdeparture( order of )pril 10, 1CC9. The
preBtrialconference was set on June 9, 1CC9.The Court of )ppeals declared conditions +a- and +b-
in'alid but declined to pass upon the 'alidity of condition +d- on the groundthat the issue had become
moot and academic. Petitioner takesissue with the Court of )ppeals with respect to its
treatment of condition +d- of the =ay 1,, 1CC9 order of the trial court which
makes petitioner&
s arraignment a prere7uisite to the appro'al of his bail bonds. $is contention is that this condition is 'oid
andthat his arraignment was also in'alid because it was heldpursuant to such in'alid condition.#**./!
"01 the condition is 'oid and the arraignment in'alid.$/34! C014#T#01 #* K0#4.bail should be
granted before arraignment, otherwise the accusedmay be precluded from filing a motion to
7uash. or if theinformation is 7uashed and the case is dismissed, there wouldthen be no need for
the arraignment of the accused. #n the secondplace, the trial court could ensure the presence of petitioner
at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering hispresence at any stage of the proceedings,
such as arraignment..nder 6ule 11<, O>+b- of the 6ules on Criminal Procedure, one of the conditions of
bail is that (the accused shall appear before theproper court whene'er so re7uired by the court or these
6ules,(while under 6ule 11,, O1+b- the presence of the accused at thearraignment is
re7uiredto condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position
where he has to choosebetween +1- filing a motion to 7uash and thus delay his releaseon bail because
until his motion to 7uash can be resol'ed, hisarraignment cannot be held, and +>- foregoing the filing of
amotion to 7uash so that he can be arraigned at once andthereafter be released on bail. These scenarios
certainly undermine the accused&s constitutional right not to be put on
trial except upon 'alid complaint or information sufficient tocharge him with a crime and his right to bail.
The condition imposed in the trial court&s order of =ay 1,, 1CC9
that the accused cannot wai'e his appearance at the trial but that he must be present at the hearings of
the case is 'alid and is inaccordance with 6ule 11<. or another condition of bail under6ule 11<, O>+c-
is that (The failure of the accused to appear at thetrial without 2ustification despite due notice to
him or hisbondsman shall be deemed an express wai'er of his right to bepresent on the date specified in
the notice. #n such case, trial shallproceed
in absentia.( J2sc)rt. ###, O1<+>- of the Constitution authoriIing trials
in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certainstages of the
proceedings, to wit! +a- at arraignment and plea,whether of innocence or of guilt, +b- during trial
whene'ernecessary for identification purposes, and +c- at the promulgationof sentence, unless it is
for a light offense, in which case theaccused may appear by counsel or representati'e. )t such
stagesof the proceedings, his presence is re7uired and cannot bewai'ed.#T 40/* 10T 0330"
T$)T T$/ )66)#?1=/1T 0P/T#T#01/6 01 =)J >;, 1CC9 ")* )3*0 #1K)3#4. Contrary to
petitioner&s contention, the arraignment did not emanate fromthe in'alid condition that (appro'al of
the bail bonds shall bemade only after the arraignment.( /'en without such a condition,the arraignment of
petitioner could not be omitted. #n sum,although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is in'alid,his
arraignment and the subse7uent proceedings against him are 'alid.
SERAPIO VS. SANDI!ANBA@AN
&96 SCRA ==& ;2))&<
8efore the Court are two petitions for certiorari filed bypetitioner /dward *erapio, assailing the resolutions
of the Third4i'ision of the *andiganbayan denying his petition for bail ,motion for a rein'estigation and
motion to 7uash, and a petition for habeas corpus, all in relation to Criminal Case 1o. >,::H
forplunder wherein petitioner is one of the accused together with former President Joseph /.
/strada, Jose DJinggoyF P. /strada and
se'eral others.Petitioner was a member of the 8oard of Trustees and the 3egalCounsel of the /rap
=uslim Jouth oundation, a nonBstock, nonBprofit foundation established in ebruary >000 ostensibly for
thepurpose of pro'iding educational opportunities for the poor andunderpri'ileged but
deser'ing =uslim youth and students, andsupport to research and ad'ance studies of young
=uslimeducators and scientists.Petitioner, as trustee of the oundation, recei'ed on its behalf adonation
in the amount of Two $undred =illion Pesos +P>00 =illion- from #locos *ur ?o'ernor 3uis
DCha'itF *ingson. )ccused by *ingson. #nformations filed.The *andiganbayan set the arraignment
of the accused, includingpetitioner. #n the meantime, on )pril >9, >001, petitioner filedwith
the *andiganbayan an .rgent Petition for 8ail which wasset for hearing on =ay <, >001.
or his part, petitioner&s coBaccused Jose DJinggoyF /strada filed on )pril >0, >001 a
Kery
.rgent 0mnibus =otion alleging that he was entitled to bail as amatter of right. 4uring the hearing
on =ay <, >001 on petitioner&s .rgent
Petition for 8ail, the prosecution mo'ed for the resetting of the arraignment of the accused earlier than
the June >9,>001 schedule. $owe'er, the *andiganbayan denied themotion of the prosecution and
issued an order declaring that the petition for bail can and should be heard before petitioner&s
arraignment on June >9, >001 and e'en beforethe other accused filed their respecti'e petitions for
bail .)ccordingly, the *andiganbayan set the hearing for the reception of e'idence on petitioner&s
petition for bail on =ay >1 to >:, >001.The *andiganbayan issued a resolution re7uiring the
attendanceof petitioner as well as all the other accused during the hearingson the petitions for bail under
pain of wai'er of crossBexamination. The *andiganbayan, citing its inherent powers toproceed with
the trial of the case in the manner it determinesbest conduci'e to orderly proceedings and
speedy termination of the case, directed the other accused to participate in the said bailhearing
considering that under *ection H, 6ule 11< of the 6e'ised6ules of Court, whate'er e'idence is adduced
during the bailhearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial.The bail hearing did not
proceed because petitioner filed with the*andiganbayan a motion to 7uash the amended #nformation
onthe grounds that as against him, the amended #nformation doesnot allege a combination or series of
o'ert or criminal actsconstituti'e of plunderG as against him, the amended #nformationdoes not allege a
pattern of criminal acts indicati'e of an o'erallunlawful scheme or conspiracy. 8y way of riposte,
theprosecution ob2ected to the holding of bail hearing untilpetitioner agreed to withdraw his motion to
7uash.
The prosecution contended that petitioner&s motion to 7uash the amended #nformation was antithetical
to his petition forbail. $e also filed a petition for $abeas Corpus.
=eanwhile, Jose DJinggoyF /strada filed with the *andiganbayan a motion praying that
said court resol'e his motion to fix his bail.the *andiganbayan issued a 6esolut ion denying
petitioner&s motion to 7uash the amended #nformation. The motion to fix bail filed by Jose
DJinggoyF /strada was also denied by the
*andiganbayan. Jose DJinggoyF /strada filed a petition for certiorari for the nullification of a
resolution of the *andiganbayan denying hismotion to fix bail.
#**./*!+1- "hether or not petitioner should first be arraigned beforehearings of his
petition for bail may be conductedG
+>- "hether petitioner may file a motion to 7uash the amended#nformation during the pendency of his
petition for bailG
+;- "hether a 2oint hearing of the petition for bail of petitionerand those of the other accused is mandatoryG
+<- "hether the People wai'ed their right to adduce e'idence inopposition to the petition
for bail of petitioner and failed toadduce strong e'idence of guilt of petitioner for the crimecharged
$/3456)T#0!
1.10. The arraignment of an accused is not a prere7uisiteto the conduct of hearings on his petition for
bail. )person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he isdepri'ed of his liberty by 'irtue of his arrest or
'oluntary surrender. )n accused need not wait for hisarraignment before filing a petition for bail.in cases
where it is authoriIed, bail should be grantedbefore arraignment, otherwise the accused may
beprecluded from filing a motion to 7uash.$owe'er, the foregoing pronouncement should not betaken to
mean that the hearing on a petition for bailshould at all times precede arraignment, because therule is that
a person depri'ed of his liberty by 'irtue of his arrest or 'oluntary surrender may apply for bail
assoon as he is depri'ed of his liberty, e'en before acomplaint or information is filed against him. The
Court&s pronouncement in 3a'ides should beunderstood in light of the fact that the accused in
saidcase filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to 7uashthe informations filed against
him. $ence, we explainedtherein that to condition the grant of bail to an accusedon his arraignment
would be to place him in a positionwhere he has to choose between +1- filing a motion to7uash and thus
delay his release on bail because untilhis motion to 7uash can be resol'ed, his arraignment cannot be
held, and +>- foregoing the filing of a motionto 7uash so that he can be arraigned at once andthereafter be
released on bail. This would underminehis constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon a 'alid
complaint or #nformation sufficient tocharge him with a crime and his right to bail.#t is therefore not
necessary that an accused be first arraigned before the conduct of hearings on hisapplication for bail. or
when bail is a matter of right,an accused may apply for and be granted bail e'en priorto
arraignment. The ruling in 3a'ides also implies that an application for bail in a case in'ol'ing an
offensepunishable by reclusion perpetua to death may also beheard e'en before an accused is
arraigned. urther, if the court finds in such case that the accused is entitledto bail because the e'idence
against him is not strong,he may be granted pro'isional liberty e'en prior toarraignmentG for in such a
situation, bail would be DauthoriIedF under the circumstances. #n fine, the*andiganbayan
committed a gra'e abuse of itsdiscretion amounting to excess of 2urisdiction inordering the arraignment of
petitioner beforeproceeding with the hearing of his petition for bail.
>.J/*. The Court finds that no such inconsistency existsbetween an application of an accused for bail
and hisfiling of a motion to 7uash. 8ail is the security gi'en forthe release of a person in the
custody of the law,furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee hisappearance before any court as
re7uired under theconditions set forth under the 6ules of Court. #tspurpose is to obtain
the pro'isional liberty of a personcharged with an offense until his con'iction while at thesame
time securing his appearance at the trial. )sstated earlier, a person may apply for bail from
themoment that he is depri'ed of his liberty by 'irtue of hisarrest or 'oluntary surrender.0n the other
hand, a motion to 7uash an #nformation isthe mode by which an accused assails the 'alidity
of acriminal complaint or #nformation filed against him forinsufficiency on its face in point of law, or for
defectswhich are apparent in the face of the #nformation. )naccused may file a motion to 7uash the
#nformation, as ageneral rule, before arraignment.These two reliefs ha'e ob2ecti'es which are
not necessarily antithetical to each other. Certainly, theright of an accused right to seek pro'isional
libertywhen charged with an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, or whencharged with an offense punishable by such penaltiesbut after due
hearing, e'idence of his guilt is found not to be strong, does not preclude his right to assail the'alidity of
the #nformation charging him with suchoffense. #t must be conceded, howe'er, that if a motionto 7uash a
criminal complaint or #nformation on theground that the same does not charge any offense isgranted
and the case is dismissed and the accused isordered released, the petition for bail of an
accused maybecome moot and academic.
;.1o. There is no pro'ision in the 6e'ised 6ules of Criminal Procedure or the 6ules of Procedure of
the*andiganbayan go'erning the hearings of two or morepetitions for bail filed by different accused or
that apetition for bail of an accused be heard simultaneouslywith the trial of the case against the other
accused. Thematter of whether or not to conduct a 2oint hearing of two or more petitions for bail filed by
two different accused or to conduct a hearing of said petition 2ointlywith the trial against another accused is
addressed tothe sound discretion of the trial court. .nless gra'eabuse of discretion amounting to excess
or lack of 2urisdiction is shown, the Court will not interfere withthe exercise by the *andiganbayan of its
discretion.#t may be underscored that in the exercise of itsdiscretion, the *andiganbayan must take into
account not only the con'enience of the *tate, including theprosecution, but also that of the accused and
thewitnesses of both the prosecution and the accused andthe right of accused to a speedy trial.
The*andiganbayan must also consider the complexities of the cases and of the factual and legal issues
in'ol'ingpetitioner and the other accused. )fter all, if this Court may echo the obser'ation of the .nited
*tates *upremeCourt, the *tate has a stake, with e'ery citiIen, in hisbeing afforded our historic indi'idual
protections,including those surrounding criminal prosecutions.)bout them, this Court dares not become
careless orcomplacent when that fashion has become rampant o'er the earth.
<. 1o. Petitioner&s claim that the prosecution had refused
to present e'idence to pro'e his guilt for purposes of hisbail application and that the *andiganbayan has
refusedto grant a hearing thereon is not borne by the records.The prosecution did not wai'e, expressly or
e'enimpliedly, its right to adduce e'idence in opposition tothe petition for bail of petitioner. #t must be noted
that the *andiganbayan had already scheduled the hearing dates for petitioner&s application for
bail but the samewere reset due to pending incidents raised in se'eral motions filed by the parties, which
incidents had to beresol'ed by the court prior to the bail hearings. The bailhearing was e'entually
scheduled by the*andiganbayan on July 10, >001 but the hearing did not push through due to the filing
of this petition on June>C, >001.
The delay in the conduct of hearings on petitioner&s application for bail is therefore not
imputable solely tothe *andiganbayan or to the prosecution. Petitioner isalso partly to blame therefor, as
is e'ident from thefollowing list of motions filed by him and by theprosecution. D"hen the grant of bail
is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the e'idence of guilt against the
accusedis strong. $owe'er, the determination of whether or not thee'idence of guilt is strong,
being a matter of 2udicial discretion,remains with the 2udge. This discretion by the 'ery nature
of things, may rightly be exercised only after the e'idence issubmitted to the court at the hearing. *ince
the discretion isdirected to the weight of the e'idence and since e'idence cannot properly be
weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before thecourt, it is ob'ious that a proper exercise
of 2udicial discretionre7uires that the e'idence of guilt be submitted to the court, thepetitioner ha'ing the
right of crossBexamination and to introduce his own e'idence in rebuttal.F )ccordingly, petitioner
cannot be released from detention untilthe *andiganbayan conducts a hearing of his application for
bailand resol'e the same in his fa'or. /'en then, there must first be afinding that the e'idence against
petitioner is not strong beforehe may be granted bail.
Tee:,5Aee 6.. D4re-t7r 7B Pr4.75.
+1C<,, $ilado-
Teehankee was detained by the .* #ntelligence )rm for conspiring with the
Japanese and was subse7uently turned o'er to the Commonwealth ?o'ernment for
custody. 1o information was filed against her in the People&s Court for about a year
and she applied for bail which was denied. *he appealed to the *C assailing the
People&s Court&s order on the ground that she was not gi'en a hearing. *C granted
her appeal and a hearing was set. The *olicitor ?eneral recommended a bail of
PhP:0% but the People&s Court did not rule on the application for bail and merely
concluded that the amount of bail really shows that the charge against her is serious.
Teehankee appealed to the *C again and prayed for it to direct the People&s Court to
render a 2udgment on her application for bail. *C granted but the People&s Court
instead of complying, set a third hearing where the Judge asked the same 7uestions
tending to compel the prosecutor to produce e'idence and when the *pecial
Prosecutor refused to adduce e'idence stating that it would imperil the success of the
prosecution and 2eopardiIe public interest, the Judge had the prosecutor arrested for
contempt of court. The prosecutor was released through habeas corpus. Teehankee
again asked the *C to decide on her application for bail and the *C again directed
the People&s Court to render a decision but in the resolution the *C declared that if
the People&s Court does not feel 2ustified in the *pecial Prosecutor&s attitude of not
opposing the petition for bail by the petitioner and the *ol ?en files a statement that
doing so would imperil the success of the prosecution and 2eopardiIe public interest,
the People&s Court may not in7uire further into the prosecution&s e'idence and the
prosecutor may not be held guilty in contempt of court for refusing to answer the PC&s
7uestion and that the hearing should be made in the presence of the petitioner or with
due notice to her. The People&s Court howe'er, instituted a fourth hearing, this time,
when the prosecutor refused to adduce e'idence, the Judge called the prosecutor
into a pri'ate conference where he allegedly ac7uired strong e'idence of Teehankee&s
guilt. The People&s Court thereafter rendered a decision based on the e'idence
ac7uired in the pri'ate conference denying the petition for bail. Teehankee again filed
a petition in the *C alleging that the People&s Court&s order was issued with gra'e
abuse of discretion and prayed for her pro'isional release under bail as may be fixed
by the *C.
The issue is whether the People&s Court may compel the prosecution to adduce
e'idence in the petitioner&s application for bail.
#n resol'ing the issue, the *C clarified that the Constitutional pro'ision gi'es
all persons the right to bail except those charged with a capital offense or when
e'idence of guilt is strong. )ll persons mean e'eryone, not only those who ha'e been
charged but also those which ha'e only been arrested, detained, or restrained and all
persons before con'iction retain this right until charged with a capital offense and
when e'idence of guilt is strong. This is because of the presumption of innocence. #f
the presumption of innocence is a'ailable to a person already charged or accused
more so for a person who was merely arrested or detained. The Constitution does not
7ualify because to limit it to those charged would be a curtailment of indi'idual
freedom. The right to bail is therefore a'ailable to Teehankee especially because she
has not been charged of any offense yet.
The *C then proceeded to rule that the People&s Court has the discretion
after due notice and hearing to allow political prisoners to be released on bail e'en
before presentation of the information unless it sees strong e'idence for the
commission of a capital offense. 8ut this 2udicial discretion to grant bail must be within
reasonable bounds guided by the Constitution, statutes, rules of court, and principles
of e7uity and 2ustice. The *ol ?en is empowered to oppose the application for bail
and to adduce e'idence based on the *tate&s interest. #f it refuses to do so, then the
People&s Court must rule on what it was presented and in the absence of strong
e'idence of guilt, the People&s Court must grant the bail. $ence, the People&s Court
cannot coerce the prosecution if it does not oppose the application for bail of the
petitioner and refuses to adduce e'idence because it might imperil the success of the
prosecution and 2eopardiIe public interest. The People&s Court must therefore grant
the petition for bail.
)lso, the *C held that the People&s Court depri'ed Teehankee of substanti'e
due process when it 'iolated the *C&s order to conduct the hearing in her presence
and instead recei'ed e'idence in a pri'ate conference because it depri'ed Teehankee
of the opportunity to be heard in defense and such pri'ate conference is in the nature
of the Judge&s personal knowledge which he has no right to act.