GOVERNMENT OF THE USA v.

PURGANAN, 389 SCRA 623, September 24, 2002
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
Facts:
Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government, through diplomatic channels,
sent to the Philippine Government Notes accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the
extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents,
the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action,
pursuant to the Extradition Law. Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted
a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. The TRO prohibited the Department of
Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition.
The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before the Supreme Court. Initially, the
Court -- by a vote of 9-6 -- dismissed the Petition. The SOJ was ordered to furnish Jimenez copies of the extradition
request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file a comment and
supporting evidence.
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, the Supreme Court issued its Resolution. By an identical
vote of 9-6 -- after three justices changed their votes -- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. It held
that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.
This Resolution has become final and executory.
Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine
DOJ, filed with the RTC, the appropriate Petition for Extradition. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was
the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 15
April 1999. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States;
Tax evasion;
Wire fraud;
False statements; and
Illegal campaign contributions.

In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate
arrest". Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte
Motion," which prayed that Jimenez’s application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.
The RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing. In that hearing, Jimenez manifested its
reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard
prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their
respective memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should
issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for
hearing.
Thereafter, the court issued its Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his
temporary liberty at P1 million in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond,
Jimenez was granted provisional liberty.
The DOJ filed the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
WON Jimenez is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending.
Held:
Extradition is different from ordinary criminal proceedings. There is no provision in the Philippine Constitution
granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant. As suggested
by the use of the word "conviction," the constitutional provision on bail, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws.
It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or
acquittal.
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption of innocence in favour of every accused
who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt
be proved beyond reasonable doubt." It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case
like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.

The provision in the Constitution stating that the "right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended" does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available
only in criminal proceedings. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application "only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion." Hence, the
second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings
for the aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition
proceedings that are not criminal in nature.
That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument
to grant him one in the present case. To stress, extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for
the offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against
him, not before the extradition court.
The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls into place with and gives life to Article 14 of the
Treaty, since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut
short their detention here. Likewise, their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall
into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of extradition cases and the need for
their speedy disposition.
The rule is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases. However, the judiciary has the constitutional duty
to curb grave abuse of discretion and tyranny, as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce
constitutional rights. Furthermore, the right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness
to extraditees. Indeed, the right to due process extends to the "life, liberty or property" of every person. It is
"dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application." Accordingly and to best serve the
ends of justice, after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be
applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the
applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and
compelling circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting
state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. Since this exception has no express or specific
statutory basis,and since it is derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness, the applicant bears
the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and emphatic forcefulness.

LEVISTE vs. CA, 615 SCRA 619, March 17, 2010
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
Facts: Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was

convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as
minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He appealed his

conviction to the Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application for
admission to bail pending appeal, citing his advanced age and health condition, and claiming
the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part.
The CA denied his application on the ground that the discretion to extend bail during the
course of appeal should be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. That bail
is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical care outside the
prison facility.
On this matter, Leviste questioned the ruling of the CA and averred that the CA committed
grave abuse of discretion in the denial of his application for bail considering that none of the
conditions justifying denial of bail under the Sec. 5 (3) Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was

present. That when the penalty imposed by the trial court is more than six years but not more
than 20 years and the circumstances in the above-mentioned provision are absent, bail must be
granted to an appellant pending appeal.

Issue: WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for bail of
Leviste.

Facts: After a preliminary investigation. Cruz filed an ex-parte motion for bail. upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death. or habitual delinquent. the constitutional right to bail ends. That he committed the offense while under probation. the judge still had no basis to grant the bail. The prosecutor made no objection. 3. or life imprisonment. from then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. From this provision. When the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua. Issue: Whether the grant of bail valid. filed a Motion to lift order allowing accused to post bail. That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary pending appeal and it cannot be said that CA committed grave abuse of discretion. or execution of the judgment of conviction. May 21. or conditional pardon. The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused. the cancellation of the bailbond was due to the execution of the final judgment of conviction. 588 SCRA 64. there was no basis for the granting of the bail. The motion was granted on the same day. Even if the prosecutor did not object to the motion. quasi-recidivist. with due notice to the prosecutor. That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail. That he has previously escaped from legal confinement. reclusion perpetua. the order granting bail is void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. He then filed a motion for reinvestigation and to lift warrant of arrest. 3 of the same rule if the penalty impose is more than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail. The Sandiganbayan did not err in cancelling petitioner’s cash bailbond after the judgment of conviction became final and executory and its execution became ministerial. RAMONA – CRUZ. dismissal of the case. or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration. 2. In this case. He was thereby detained. March 17. . Cruz was charged with parricide which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. sister of the deceased wife. SANDIGANBAYAN. Such lapse of time could not be deemed sufficient for the trial court to receive and evaluate any evidence. The CA even found that only 10 minutes had elapsed between the filing of the Motion and the granting of bail. a hearing must be conducted by the trial judge before the bail can be granted. That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. or violated the conditions of his bail without a valid justification. It is the judge’s duty first to determine if evidence of guilt is strong before bail is granted.—Upon application of the bondsmen. Cancellation of bail. the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death. 4. the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail. with notice to the accused. evaded sentence. of the following or other circumstances: 1. Section 22 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly provides: SEC. BONGGAC v. Narciso Cruz was charged with the crime of parricide for allegedly killing his wife. it is clear that the cancellation of bail is automatic upon execution of the judgment of conviction. or his bail be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution. the presumption of innocence terminates and. 22. allowing the accused to post bail at P150. In all instances. Under par.Held: No. parole. After conviction by the trial court. NARCISO v. 2009 On the cancellation of petitioner’s cash bailbond as ordered in the Resolution of 10 January 2003 of the Sandiganbayan. Also. The judge had no reason to presume that that prosecutor knew what he was doing. Without such hearing. That he is a recidivist.000. Held: No. Flor Cruz. 2010 PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. No hearing was conducted on the application for bail – summary or otherwise. or 5. under Sec 5 of Rule 114 bail is discretionary. accordingly.

Hence. and order on the other. the instant petition. Private respondent filed a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. Warrants of arrest were issued against him. GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SAR v.—It is already settled that when a judge grants bail to a person charged with a capital offense.—The importance of the Rule lies on the fact that on the result of the bail hearing depends the right of an accused to provisional liberty vis-à-vis the duty of the State to protect the people against dangerous elements. If convicted. if not eliminate. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud. 2007 SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided by respondent judge. Jr. holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk. penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extradite in an extradition proceeding. discretion must be exercised regularly. The resolution of the issue affects important norms in our society: liberty on one hand. Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order. inhibited himself from further hearing the case. When a judge grants bail to a person charged with a capital offense or by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the required bail hearing." Judge Bernardo. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail and this was granted by respondent judge. 421 SCRA 500. 521 SCRA 470. but it was denied by respondent judge. Certiorari." in violation of Bribery Ordinance of Hong Kong. it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed against in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. Judge Bernardo. 1995. or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the required [bail] hearing. 1997. Branch 19. Admission to bail presupposes the exercise thereof in accordance with law and guided by the applicable legal principles. he is considered guilty of ignorance or incompetence. .. The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail. the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. The Rules require the Judge to hear the parties and then make an intelligent assessment of their evidence. he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge. The RTC. Jr. he is considered guilty of ignorance or incompetence the gravity of which cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable negligence. Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of “accepting an advantage as agent.—When a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules. In other words." It took effect on June 20. after the evaluation of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and the prevailing jurisprudence. Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice. 1999. Facts: On January 30. issued an Order denying the petition for bail. that is. TRESVALLES. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice. OLALIA. The Petitioner is the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons. error and arbitrariness in a judge’s decision. The Respondents are Judge Felix Olalia and Juan Antonio Muñoz. and within the confines of due process.GRAGEDA v. February 2. April 19.—Admission to bail presupposes the exercise thereof in accordance with law and guided by the applicable legal principles. the Rules require the judge to hear the parties and then make an intelligent assessment of their evidence. legally. Jr. On September 13. 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. the NBI agents arrested and detained him. After hearing. Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Authority. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice. To minimize. he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. That same day.

The failure of a judge to grant bail in accordance with established rules and procedure subjects him to administrative liability. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Ratio: The Philippines. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention. and thereafter. and due process." WHEREFORE. 2. Its objective is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled. BELDIA. the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired. the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. RUIZ v." If not. this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. 3. deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail. but one that is merely administrative in character. Clearly. BAIL 1. the application for bail should be filed before the proper court where he is held. we DISMISS the petition. Extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. We should not. Given the foregoing. Under these treaties. liberty. whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion. . A judge disregards basic procedural rules when he grants bail sans hearing and notice and without the person detained filing a formal petition for bail. Where a person has not yet been charged in court. reasonable notice of hearing must be given to the prosecutor. 4. committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations. but also by international conventions. According to him. the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan. to which the Philippines is a party. Thus. 451 SCRA 402. or at least his recommendation on the matter must be sought. Consequently. the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. 6. In this case. Nor is it a fullblown civil action. 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. More so. then Associate Justice Puno proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. Jr. where these rights are guaranteed.Issue: Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee. along with the other members of the family of nations. Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Authority. provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings. 5. this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. The authority of a judge merely designated as “assisting judge” in a particular court is limited and he could only act on an application for bail filed therewith in the absence or unavailability of the regular judge. there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Held: No. the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential lextraditee. February 16. not only by our Constitution. The potential extradite must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch. In all cases. therefore.. the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life. A person lawfully arrested and detained but who has not yet been formally charged in court can seek his provisional release through the filing of an application for bail. for the purpose of trial or punishment.

Facts: Maruyama sued Okabe for estafa. submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. The judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit/affidavits and the documentary evidence of the parties. allegedly entered into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to . both Okabe and Marumaya were given the chance to adduce nd evidence/affidavits on their behalf. (d) other documents presented during the said investigation. May 27. the series of acts by Okabe point to the conclusion that she was insistent about the fact that the arrest was ordered with insufficient finding of probable cause. Okabe filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause. Section 26 of the Rule 114 says that an application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore. The reason for this rule is because the law aims not only to acquit the innocent but to like insulate the clearly innocent from false charges and from the strong arm of the law. 2010 PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. (c) the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation. it applies retroactively. Besides. 2004 PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. other supporting documents and the resolution of the case. These documents were forwarded to the city prosecutor for approval. It was alleged in the complaint that Maruyama entrusted to Okabe a sum of money for the latter. Issue: Whether the trial court judge should have required the production of the affidavits of Maruyama’s witnesses. stenographic notes of the preliminary investigation and Okabe’s counteraffidavit for the purposes of determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest –YES. Being curative and procedural in nature. as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation. PENA. against Urban Bank and the petitioners. their documentary evidences. Bago City. v. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental. to remit to the Philippines. In this case. Held: The case of Webb v De Leon and Ho v People say that for the purposes of determining the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a WoA. It must favor Okabe. nd The complaint for estafa was files with the 2 assistant city prosecutor for preliminary investigation. She contends that it behooved the investigating prosecutor to submit the following to the trial court to enable it to determine the presence or absence of probable cause: (a) copies of the affidavits of the witnesses of the complainant.OKABE v. who was engaged in the business of door to door delivery. This rule is now embodied section 8(a) of Rule 112 (but which is section 7 (a) in ourcodal) which mandates that an information filed in court shall be supported by affidavits and counter affidavits of the parties and their witnesses. Whether posting of bail bars the accused from questioning the legality of the arrest or the conduct of preliminary investigation ‐NO. Facts: Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and expenses. every waiver of a right to question the validity of an arrest must be unequivocally established by the conduct of the accused. and attorney’s fees. Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency. Then the information was filed with the RTC of Pasay. She claims that the documents attached to the resolution of the investigating prosecutor were insufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause. The 2 assistant city prosecutor found probable cause and issued a resolution and the corresponding information. if any. Jr. she immediately filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause. provided that he raises them before entering his plea. May 5. 429 SCRA 685. the judge should not rely solely on the said report.000 thereby allowing her to freely leave the Philippines for Japan. Appended thereto was the Marumaya’s complaint affidavit. Okabe failed to remit such amount. and. or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him. GUTIERREZ. 620 SCRA 106. A WoA was issued but Okabe was able to post bail in the amount of PhP 40. This is a curative rule because modified the previous rulings of the SC saying that posting of bail is a bar to challenging the validity of the arrest. Upon the instance of the prosecution. In fact. (b) the counter-affidavit of Okabe and those of her witnesses. the counter affidavit of the accused and his witnesses. BORLONGAN. damages. During the preliminary investigation. a hold-departure order was issued by the court.

the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure was already in effect. As held in Okabe v. Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants for the arrest of the petitioners. When the only proof of intention rests on what a party does. the rules governing curative statutes are applicable. Held: The erstwhile ruling of this Court was that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in the issuance of a warrant of arrest that has already been superseded by Section 26. Respondent Peña filed his Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor. Rule 114 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure. Hence. Red. MTCC upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest. Thus. There must be clear and convincing proof that the petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish her right to question the existence of probable cause. saying that it was issued in accordance with the Rules. the corresponding Informations were filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Hon. there was no valid waiver of their right to preclude . Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation on the same day that they posted bail. his act should be so manifestly consistent with. Worse. and that the documents formed part of the record of Civil Case where they were used by petitioners as evidence in support of their motion to dismiss. but he was appointed by the ISCI. Before the appellate court rendered its decision on January 31. since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents were submitted by the petitioners. (according to the MTCC) petitioners could no longer question the validity of the warrant since they already posted bail. The new rule is curative in nature because precisely. the trial judge merely relied on the complaintaffidavit and attachments of the respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest. procedural rules as a general rule operate retroactively. when the court a quo entered a plea of not guilty for them. and indicative of. Thereafter. the petitioners refused to enter their plea. in other words to actions yet undetermined at the time of their effectivity. The principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of the arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial. The City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were falsified because the alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal of the respondent. Curative statutes are by their essence retroactive in application. petitioners refused to enter their plea due to the fact that the issue on the legality of their arrest is still pending with the Court. adopted in their answer and later. it was designed to supply defects and curb evils in procedural rules. intended to modify previous rulings of this Court that an application for bail or the admission to bail by the accused shall be considered as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest on the legalities or irregularities thereon. and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI. On the same day that the Omnibus MQ was filed. without previously invoking his objections thereto. He claimed that said documents were falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix their signatures. in their Pre. Petitioners filed an Omnibus MQ. Besides. petitioners introduced said documents as evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified. it cannot be argued that she waived her right to question the finding of probable cause and to assail the warrant of arrest issued against her by the respondent judge. considering the conduct of the petitioner after posting her personal bail bond. Subsequently. also in contravention of the Rules. x x x.” Herein petitioners filed the Omnibus Motion to Quash.24 On the date of their arraignment. Bago City.Trial Brief. Petitioners filed a MD accompanied with documents as proof that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel by the Urban Bank or by the petitioners. They insist that they were denied due process because of the non-observance of a proper procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court. even without express provisions to that effect. the petitioners posted bail. The new rule has reverted to the ruling of this Court in People v. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is a new one. It behoved the appellate court to have applied the same in resolving the petitioner’s petition for certiorari and her motion for partial reconsideration. for the obvious reason that the legality of their information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the court. that petitioners knew that the documents were falsified considering that the signatories were mere dummies. to cases pending at the time of their effectivity.prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Bank’s property located along Roxas Boulevard. Issue: Whether the petitioners posting a bail constitutes a waiver of their right to question the validity of their arrest. intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the particular right that no other explanation of his conduct is possible. Moreover. Moreover they claim that the respondent’s affidavit was not based on the latter’s personal knowledge and therefore should not have been used by the court in determining probable cause. Upon arraignment. Gutierrez: “It bears stressing that Section 26. Pasay City. 2001. Besides. Their bail bonds likewise expressly contained a stipulation that they were not waiving their right to question the validity of their arrest. Their bail bonds expressly provided that they do not intend to waive their right to question the validity of their arrest.

2013 FAR EASTERN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. In the exercise of that discretion.. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. 170618. The allowance of bail pending appeal should be exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons. did not pass upon the falsity or forgery of the bail bond’s signatures. the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment where bail is prohibited. considering that the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court. as here. FACTS: A personal bail bond was issued for the release of Celo Tuazon with the RTC which was later then approved. Hence this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the ROC. HELD: In the absence of factual circumstances relating to the RTC’s approval of the bail bond. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Neither was there any finding on the validity of the bail bond. A judgment of forfeiture was issued against petitioner and thereafter a writ of execution. But petitioner filed with the RTC a very urgent motion to cancel fake/falsified bail bond and prayed to be relieved from any liability alleging that the signatures are forged and unauthorized. a finding on whether it erred is a matter that the SC cannot touch. A bail bond is required to be in a public document. Missing as well was any mention of the circumstances that led to the RTC’s approval of the bond. QUI v. Respondent. convincing and more than merely preponderant. As a notarized document. otherwise. 2012 Under the present rule.―Under the present rule. Petitioners. it should not be deemed as a waiver of their right to assail their arrest. . This ruling. the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death. 682 SCRA 94. Likewise notable is the settled rule that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear. by its clear terms. No. the proper courts are to be guided by the fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending appeal should be exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons. who was the petitioner’s representative filed a motion for extension of time and sought petitioner’s assistance. Nothing in the order resolved the question of whether Teodorico’s signature had been forged. INC. Tuazon however failed to appear in the schedule hearing prompting the RTC to issue an order requiring the petitioner to produce the body of the accused and to explain why no judgment shall be rendered against the bond.R. Petition granted. pursuant to the “tough on bail pending appeal” policy. positive and convincing evidence. considering that the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court. Samuel Baui. The RTC denied the motion on the ground that petitioner had indirectly acknowledge the bond’s validity when it filed a motion for extension of time. September 26. The burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery. the regularity of the document should be upheld. ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in holding the petitioner liable under the alleged falsified bond. The Court held: Indeed. PEOPLE. which presumption can only be contradicted by evidence that is clear.. November 20.them from raising the same with the Court of Appeals or this Court. nor any definitive ruling on the effects of the unauthorized signature of Paul. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. it has the presumption of regularity in its favor. i. the presence of bail-negating conditions mandates the denial or revocation of bail pending appeal such that those circumstances are deemed to be as grave as conviction by the trial court for an offense punishable by death. a duly notarized document.e. We need all these factual bases to make a ruling on what and how the law should be applied. v.. The posting of bail bond was a matter of imperative necessity to avert their incarceration. G. MTCC is ordered to dismiss criminal cases against petitioners.

is a non-capital offense. Despite the absence of any written application. if the matter of forgery and falsification has already been settled. Branch 29. However. city. PANTILO III VS. even assuming this to be a purely legal issue. the questions of whether the petitioner’s evidence is sufficient and convincing to prove the forgery of the signature and whether the evidence is more than merely preponderant to overcome the presumption of validity and the regularity of the notarized bail bond are unsettled factual matters that the assailed ruling did not squarely rule upon.” In the case at bar. Sec. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. filed an administrative complaint against herein respondent judge of the RTC of Surigao City charging the latter gross ignorance of the law and/procedures. At the moment. Melgazo did not file any application or petition for the grant of bail with the Surigao City RTC. Simply put. even though no information had been filed in Court that would serve as the basis for the approval of the bail. or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court. The money . petitioner. ISSUE: WON the application and reduction of bail is valid. 17. city or municipality where he is held. the resolution of these matters is outside this Court’s authority to act upon. 14. brother of the victim in a homicide. more so in this case when the charge against Melgazo. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule. but a verbal order. the accused shall be discharged from custody. In addition to a written application for bail. HELD: NO. CANOY (2011) It is settled that an accused in a criminal case has the constitutional right to bail. This is a clear deviation from the procedure laid down in Sec. the letter-complaint focuses on the manner of Melgazo’s release from detention. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure allows that any person in custody who is not yet charged in court “may apply for bail with any court in the province. In other words. and that no written. Deposit of cash as baill The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial. respondent judge verbally granted bail to Melgazo. and which this Court cannot now resolve via a Rule 45 petition. Rule 114 of the Rules prescribes other requirements for the release of the accused: SEC. was issued directing the city police station to release the accused from his detention cell. 17 of Rule 114. a finding of forgery (or absence of forgery) is necessary. FACTS: After learning that the accused in a criminal case was released.All these legal realities tell us that we can rule only on the issue of liability. grave abuse of authority and appearance of impropriety with a prayer of the latter’s disbarment.

deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess. the Rules of Court may not be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the rights of another. city or municipal treasurer. Conditions of the bail. Rule 114 to be complied with by Melgazo. ALAMDEDA (2010) FACTS: Petitioner after having been charged with Homicide posted bail. no certificate of deposit from the BIR collector or provincial. Melgazo or any person acting in his behalf did not deposit the amount of bail recommended by the Prosecutor with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial. shall remain in form at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the bail.000 cash bond. Office of the Clerk of Court.” there is no such species of bail under the Rules. Immediately upon receipt by Suriaga of the cash deposit of PhP 30. (b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court or these Rules. if any. Private complainants. shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it. requirements All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions: (a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval. 2. the amount of the undertaking and the conditions required by this section. no written undertaking signed by Melgazo. Despite the noblest of reasons. there was no written application for bail. which was approved by the RTC of Makati. and no written release order. the trial may proceed in absentia. (c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. Worse. 14 of Rule 114. In sum. and (d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final execution. The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused.000 from Melgazo. SEC. and to date it the following day. 2. and unless cancelled. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the face. to earmark an official receipt for the cash deposit. LEVISTE VS. As regards the insistence of Judge Canoy that such may be considered as “constructive bail. heirs of the deceased. In the case at bar. Judge Canoy instead verbally ordered Clerk IV Suriaga of the Surigao City RTC. In such case. to accept the cash deposit as bail. In clear departure from Sec. filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying for the public prosecutor . respondent judge did not require Melgazo to sign a written undertaking containing the conditions of the bail under Sec. city or municipal treasurer. a 40. Judge Canoy ordered the police escorts to release Melgazo without any written order of release.

000. From the given circumstances. The RTC amended the information for murder and directed the issuance of warrant of arrest. Neither can the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction be deemed as a voluntary relinquishment of petitioner’s principal prayer. Petitioner filed an appeal during the pendency of which he filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal. The non-issuance of such injunctive relief only means that the appellate court did not preliminarily find any exception to the long-standing doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution. his act should be so manifestly consistent with. HELD: NO. petitioner still moved for the early resolution of the present petition. PLAZA (2009) GR 176933 FACTS: . without previously invoking his objections thereto. When the only proof of intention rests on what a party does. Other than its allegation of active participation. The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial.to re-examine the evidence or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. Whatever delay arising from petitioner’s availment of remedies against the trial court’s Orders cannot be imputed to petitioner to operate as a valid waiver on his part. The CA denied the application. where petitioner refused to plead drawing the RTC to enter a not guilty plea for him. on January 26. the Court cannot reasonably infer a valid waiver on the part of petitioner to preclude him from obtaining a definite resolution of the objections he so timely invoked. The OSG argued that the present petition had been rendered moot since the presentation of evidence had been concluded. the validity of the admission of the amended information. Because he raised them prior to the arraignment. the OSG offered no clear and convincing proof that petitioner’s participation in the trial was unconditional with the intent to voluntarily and unequivocally abandon his petition. and the legality of his arrest under the amended information. an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the particular right that no other explanation of his conduct is possible. The RTC went to try the petitioner under the amended information and find petitioner herein guilty of homicide. Prior to the arraignment. 2010. In fact. There must be clear and convincing proof that petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause. and indicative of. ISSUE: WON petitioner waived his right to challenge the regularity of the investigation of the charge against him. petitioner filed an Urgent application for Admission to Bail Ex Abundanti Cautela finding the evidence of murder is not strong and allowing him to post bail for 300. PEOPLE VS. by applying for bail.

Plaza after being charged with the crime of Homicide filed a motion to fix the amount of his bail bond and since the prosecution’s evidence can sufficiently prove homicide. Respondent was subsequently released after the grant and posting of his bail bond.M.000.000. is necessary under Rule 114 Section 5 of the RRCP. bail becomes a matter of right towards the accused because the motion to fix bail was filed prior to his conviction for the crime of Homicide. HELD: NO. MTJ-08-1709 (2009) FACTS: Judge Pangilinan issued a warrant of arrest for slander against Cervantes who subsequently posted bail for 2. She later filed a motion to admit counter-affidavit of which Carmenchita refused to accept because Cervantes has already been arraigned. The CA dismissed Roberto’s petition on the ground that a motion to fix the amount of bail bond constitutes an application for bail. that it is the public prosecutor who has exclusive jurisdiction to determine what crime the accused should be charged with. CERVANTES VS. PANGILINAN A. and that under the Rules. to determine whether respondent was entitled to bail. . Roberto. And since the discretionary power of the trial court to grant bail depends on whether the evidence of guilt is strong pursuant to Article 3 Section 13 of the Constitution. No. that the accused should have filed a motion and/or application to bail. Judge Tan concurred with the assessment of Judge Buyer. ISSUE: WON holding a summary hearing. the prosecution could still prove the existence of treachery after the defense has rested its case. that the accused had already waived his right to apply for bail at the stage of the proceedings. impleading the people as co-petitioner. being for murder. The latter pleaded not guilty during her arraignment. The opposition contends that the case is non-bailable. The victim’s brother. he prayed for his release on bail and that the bail bond for his temporary liberty be fixed at 40. The said section speaks for an application for bail AFTER a judgment of conviction has been handed down by the RTC. The OSG adopted Roberto’s argument that the grant of bail without any separate hearing is contrary to prevailing jurisprudence. the usual bond for homicide in the RTC of Surigao. Hence. holding a summary hearing would be unnecessary as the evidence in chief was already presented by the prosecution. holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict respondent of homicide. assailed the order via petition for certiorari with the CA.

charged for a prejudicial conduct to the best interest of the service and ignorance of the law. As Section 16 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure reiterates: Arrest of accused. 2009) DOLORES C. Respondent. upon receiving the amount that complainant gave for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her son. she demanded the return of the said amount on several occasions but was ignored by the latter. – The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. ISSUE: WON the issuance of a warrant of arrest and fixing bail at 2. The latter however. ATTY. MACASA.000. FACTS: The complainant seek respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son. the warrant of arrest he issued had no legal basis. There being no showing that complainant failed to appear in court when required by Judge Pangilinan. 7815 (July 23. in a letter-complaint against Judge Pangilinan and the clerk of court. she filed that Counter-Affidavit with the motion to admit the same. When the former learned that respondent did not remit the amount to the court.C.000 for Cervantes is valid. What the respondent judge did in this case was that the accused was caused to be arraigned without ordering her to file her Counter-Affidavit which later when Lanie Cervantes had known that she could not put up her defense without a Counter-Affidavit in Summary Procedure. Carmenchita. Warrant of Arrest should not have been issued against Lanie Cervantes which fact during the cross-examination was admitted by respondent judge to be lapses of judgment. vs. He could have ordered Lanie Cervantes to file her Counter-Affidavit within ten (10) days as provided by [t]he Rules before arraignment. ALAN S. No. HELD: NO. BELLEZA.Cervantes. . Complainant. A. Judge Pangilinan immediately issued a warrant of arrest and fixed complainant’s bail at 2. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.

Indeed. No. CONQUILLA VS.000. For all intents and purposes. The respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to hold the complainant for trial for the crime of direct assault. after accepting the criminal case against complainant’s son and receiving his attorney’s fees. Bulacan. HELD: YES.000 was issued by the respondent judge. Respondent failed to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client. ISSUE: WON respondent unduly impeded the complainant son’s constitutional right to bail. Upon motion. on account of respondent’s continued inaction. MTJ-09-1737 (2011) FACTS: A criminal complaint was filed against Conquilla before the MTC of Bocaue.Complainant filed a disbarment case against herein respondent for unprofessional and unethical conduct in connection with the handling of a criminal case involving complainant’s son. Conquilla filed an administrative complaint against Judge Bernardo. complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorney’s Office. Not only did it prejudice complainant’s son. the bail was reduced to 6. respondent abandoned the cause of his client.M. it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. and gross negligence of the law on the grounds that: first . BERNARDO A. for usurpation of authority. A warrant of arrest with a fixed bail amount of 12. respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. Respondent’s lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainant’s son was reprehensible. In this case. grave misconduct.

Sr. respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the case itself. refuted the allegations averring that the complaint is merely a harassment designed to oust him of his rightful share in their business dealings.level court judges no longer have the authority to conduct preliminary investigations. who was not even given the chance to comment on complainant’s Motion to Reduce Bail. Thus. The trial court dismissed the said petition ruling that the remedy of habeas corpus cannot be availed of to obtain an order of release once a deportation order has already been issued by the Bureau. respondent judge usurped the power of the prosecutor. GO. respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation without authority and issued the warrant of arrest. In this case. it assumes that the judge has jurisdiction over the case. Go again filed the same petition before the RTC of Pasay assailing his apprehension and detention despite the pendency of his appeal and his release on recognizance. Go commenced a petition for habeas corpus but was dismissed by reason of his provisional release on bail. maintaining that he is indeed a natural born Filipino citizen. RAMOS 598 SCRA 266 FACTS: These three consolidated cases stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Ramos before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation against Go. ISSUE: WON the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the reduction of the amount of bail is void for want of jurisdiction. The commission dismissed the complaint relying the NBI findings but days after the same was reversed. The former issued a warrant of deportation. VS. the hasty issuance of the warrant of arrest was without legal basis and unjustly prejudiced complainant and deprived her of her liberty. Go. The reduction of bail is also void because in the first place. HELD: YES. While Rule 114 of the Rules of Court allows a judge to grant bail in bailable offenses and to increase or decrease bail. these acts are void for want of jurisdiction. . alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien.

The order stated that petitioner had approved bail bonds issued by a black listed company without showing any unavailability of all RTC Judges in Pasig considering that the accused persons posting bail bonds were charge criminal cases pending before the RTC in Pasig and detained in the Pasig City Jail. HELD: NO. the cancellation of his bail cannot be assailed via a petition for habeas corpus. The Habeas Corpus case is rendered moot and academic as Go is no longer detained. MARILOU RUNES. PRESIDING JUDGE. The writ of habeas corpus should not be allowed after the party sought to be released had been charged before any court. he may no longer question his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The term “court” in this context includes quasi-judicial bodies of governmental agencies authorized to order the person’s confinement. for the policies governing the grant of his bail should likewise apply in the cancellation of the said bail. The RTC of Pasig furnished a copy revoking the unethical orders of release issued by herein petitioner in various criminal cases assigned to that branch. was sent to then Chief Justice Hilario Davide. not when the order of deportation had already been issued by the Board. the Regional Trial Courts have no power to release such alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings because there is no law authorizing it. the power to grant bail can only be exercised while the alien is still under investigation. MTJ-04-1558 FACTS: A letter which the court treated as an administrative complaint. ISSUE: WON the bail granted was valid.TAMANG. The SC ruled that once a person detained is duly charged in court. RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. for the existing connivance of the arresting officer and court employees in approving fake bonds for a fee. When an alien is detained by the Bureau of Immigration for deportation pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation Board. His remedy would be to quash the information and/or the warrant of arrest duly issued. as well as her husband. METRO MANILA AND PRESIDING JUDGE. Pursuant to PIA of 1940. A. Jr. Petitioners argue that the Go cannot rely on the bail on recognizance he was previously granted to question his subsequent apprehension and detention. Likewise. requesting the investigation of herein petitioner. like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration.The Court of Appeals granted the petition and enjoined the deportation of Jimmy until the issue of his citizenship is settled with finality by the court. MeTC PATEROS. The CA held that the issuance of a warrant to arrest and deport the petitioner without any proof whatsoever of his violation of the bail conditions. is arbitrary. ISSUE: . inequitable and unjust. that he was previously granted. A discreet investigation revealedthe anomalous transactions on bail bonds committed in the petitioner’s sala. MeTC SAN JUAN. METRO MANILA.M.

where filed.— (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending. ATTY. metropolitan trial judge. or if no judge thereof is available. ISSUE: . or municipal circuit trial judge in the province. with any regional trial judge. Atty. or municipality other than where the case is pending. Bail. city. The latter issued twin orders – granting bail and the release of the accused from custody. municipal trial judge. HELD: NO. such recommendation was in effect a waiver of the public prosecutor’s right to a bail hearing. bail may also be filed with any Regional Trial Court of said place. Gacal filed a very-urgent motion but was denied by the judge on the ground of pro forma for not bearing the conformity of the public prosecutor.000. or municipal circuit trial judge therein. viz: Section 17. Such approval is in contravention of Section 17 (a) Rule 114 of the ROC. Gacal charges Judge Infante with gross ignorance of the law. Atty. city. or municipality. municipal trial judge. in his comment. with any metropolitan trial judge. The case was raffled to Judge Infante’s branch. JUDGE INFANTE (2011) FACTS: The MCTC of Sarangani issued a warrant of arrest in connection with a murder case without bail. If the accused is arrested in a province. recommended bail as a matter of course and the recommendation and release of the accused were proper. GACAL VS. The latter. Petitioner herein approved the bail bonds of three criminal cases notwithstanding the presence and availability of the RTC in Mandaluyong before whose courts the cases are pending. The office of the provincial prosecutor affirmed the findings and accordingly filed with the RTC an information for murder but with a recommendation for bail in the amount of 400. Section 17 (a). gross incompetence and evident partiality for the latter’s failure to set a hearing before granting bail to the accused and for releasing him immediately after allowing bail.WON the petitioner’s approval of the bail bonds is valid pursuant to Section 17 (a) Rule 114 of the ROC. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court governs the approval of bail bonds for criminal cases pending outside the judge’s territorial jurisdiction. or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof.

he was charged with the crime of murder. in whom alone the discretion to determine whether to grant bail or not was vested.WON bail hearing is unnecessary when the accused did not file an application for bail. The public prosecutor’s recommendation of bail was not material in deciding whether to conduct the mandatory hearing or not. A hearing. the trial judge could become unavoidably controlled by the Prosecution. Cawaling filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the CA disregarded the findings and assessment of the RTC on the matter of credibility of the witnesses and testimonies. his bond shall be forfeited and an order of his arrest shall be issued and his appeal shall be dismissed. including the amount of bail. Nor did such recommendation constitute a showing that the evidence of guilt was not strong. and because the public prosecutor had recommended bail. For one. The CA further ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case to the SC pursuant to Section 13 Rule 124. did not necessarily bind the trial judge. He further avers that "no prejudice can also be had on the people if bail is maintained. He therefore prays that he be allowed to maintain his bail bond while the case is being deliberated by this Court. albeit persuasive. if conviction is sustained" by this Court. having been convicted by the CA. a violation of due process occurs. CAWALING GR 157147 (2003) FACTS: Cawaling was found guilty as an accomplice in the crime of homicide in the RTC of Romblon. If he fail to surrender. This will give the Prosecution a chance to show the strength of its evidence. he was jailed for more than 4 years while the case was heard below. If it was otherwise. was non-binding. The SC directed the presiding judge of the RTC to order the bondsmen/sureties of Cawaling to surrender him. PEOPLE VS. separate and distinct from the initial hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. The OSG prayed for the denial of the motion for reconsideration because Cawaling. otherwise. He argues that the records will show that he had faced his accuser and never went into hiding and in fact. the public prosecutor’s recommendation. The fact that the public prosecutor recommended bail for Ancheta did not warrant dispensing with the hearing. since the accused can immediately be arrested. He argues that there is now a conflict between RTC and the CA’s findings on his alleged participation in the commission of the crime. but on appeal to the CA. HELD: NO. should still be held. ISSUE: . Whatever the public prosecutor recommended. of a capital offense can no longer post bail.

is that if an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted and sentenced to suffer such penalty. This includes the penalty which may be increased. An appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case wide open for review and the appellate court can correct errors. all prisoners whether under preventive detention or . Appellant was charged with the crime of murder which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion. appellant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals. The entire case is submitted for review and even factual questions may again be weighed and evaluated. All of his request were denied by the court. Rule 114 is explicit. Stated otherwise. There is the possibility that appellant may be convicted upon the original charge. However. Judge Dumlao approved Medina's bail. Although the court a quo found him guilty of a lesser offense.WON Cawaling’s motion for reconsideration be granted. though unassigned. Several directives of the court were issued which Judge Dumlao ignored. Issue: Whether or not a Judge may issue bail for an accused whose case is pending on another court. People v Dumlao This is complaint for gross ignorance of the law against Dumlao. Pimentel Special civil action in the supreme court. there is no showing that Judge Anghad was absent or unavailable or that the accused was arrested outside Santiago City. Section 7. and evidence of guilt is strong. The constitution provides that no person charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt was strong. or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Petitioner who remained in detention won a seat in the senate. bail must not be granted during the pendency of the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Facts: Petitioner Trillanes was charged along with others with coup d'etat. coup d'etat is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Facts: A criminal case filed by Barbero aginst her man Medina was raffled to Judge Anghad. it would have likewise ruled that the accused's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Medina was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by Judge Anghad. therefore. Therefore. bail shall be denied. Also. Barbero charged Judge Dumlao with gross ignorance of the law. Held: In the present case. unless the Judge is absent or unavailable or if the accused is arrested in the province. bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. which found him guilty of the crime of murder. the bail should be filed with any RTC of the place. or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. He then filed emotion for him to perform his duty in the senate. there is no distinction as to political complexion or moral turpitude involve in the crime charged. Issue: Whether the court erred in denying his application for bail. regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. Trillanes V. when the accused is charged with a capital offense. Judge Dumlao failed to act in accordance to the rules of court regarding bail. No person charged with a capital offense. HELD: NO. The court would not have only determined that the evidence of guilt is strong. He was considered to have waived his right to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Sec 17 provieds that bail maybe filed with the court where the case is pending. that may be found in the appealed judgment. no person under detention by legal process shall be released except when his admitted to bail. Held: No. Under Sec 3 Rule 114 of the rules of court. shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. The clear implication.

in this case. the bondsmen. after forfeiture. however. Instead. The latter was charged with illegal possession of fire arms. second. His right to bail. When the accused failed to appear in court.000 to 120. Issue: Whether the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: “All persons. This shows that there was a failure of due process of law. MENDOZA VS. 2001. Sec 21 Rule 114 provides for the two requisites forfeiture of bail. the non-appearance by the accused is a cause for the judge to summarily declare the bond as forfeited.” . the court agrees with the findings and recommendation of OCA. be bailable by sufficient sureties. Complainant was arrested for illegal sale of prohibited drugs punishable by Prision Correctional. two ocassions upon which the Trial Court may rule adversely against the bondman in cases where the accused fails to appear in court. ALARMA Facts: Spouses Alarma are the owners of a parcel of land posted as a property bond for the provisional liberty of Joselito Mayo. are given 30 days within which to produce the principal or to show cause why judgment shall not be rendered against the bond. a writ of execution was issued and the land was sold at the public auction. However. he jumped bail. shall. Excessive bail shall not be required. Section 13. among others. He was then arrested on September 12. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. it leaves something to be done. as he alleged is a constitutional right. two years had passed from the time the court ordered the forfeiture and no judgment had been rendered. His Bail Bond was increased from 60. elective or appointive. before conviction. San Miguel v Maceda Facts: Complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging Judge Maceda with gross ignorance of the law. the trial court ordered this arrest and the confiscation offica bail bond in favor of the government and directed the bondsmen to show cause why judgement should not be entered against the bail bond.000. As held in reliance surety vs amante. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. OCA recommends that the order increasing the bail shall be cancelled and tyhat the accused enjoys the right to bail since he has not yet been convited and he is charged with an offense not punishable by death or Life imprisonment.serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation or hold office. Issue: Whether the bond forfeiture was valid Held: No. Complainant alleged that his right to procedural due process was violated as the offense charged is neither a capital offense nor punishable by Reclusion Perpetua. first. Held: Yes. a writ of execution was issued. not only a mere privilege. An order of forfeiture is interlocutory.

if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable. Issue: Whether or not the cancellation of bail is proper. provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. (c) That he committed the offense while under probation. with notice to the accused. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal. (b)That he has previously escaped from legal confinement. However. . or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution. Bail. or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. though the accused jumped bail. the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman. where bail is a matter of right and prior absconding and forfeiture is not exceoted form such right. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure3 provides: “SEC. After trial. when discretionary. or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration. On the same day. the petition for certiorari and preliminary injunction is not the proper remedy in assailing the Trial Court's order cancelling his bail. of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That he is a recidivist. Section 5. An Omnibus order was issued cancelling bail of the respondent. If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years. admission to bail is discretionary. Petitioner filed a motion for cancellation of bail for the respodent might flee. Chua v Court of Appeals Facts: An Information of estafa was filed against Wilfred Chiok caused by the petitioner. respondent was convicted of estafa sentencing him of 12 years of prision mayor to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal. quasi-recidivist. or (e)That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. He was not appear on the promulgation of judgment.—Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death. 5. bail must be allowed. (d)That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail. or habitual delinquent. evaded sentence. parole. the accused shall be denied bail. Petitioner argued thathe should not be deprived of his liberty pending the resolution of his appeal as he was convicted of a non-capital offense. Should the court grant the application. the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. or conditional pardon. Held: Yes.Also.

and conspirators were filed with the office of the ombudsman. particularly Section 19 of Rule 114. The motion was denied. Savella v Ines Facts: This case stemmed from a criminal complaint filed in MTCC vigan for falsification of public document. or municipal circuit trial judge of the province or city or municipality. petitioner argues that respondent is flight risk. Issue: Whether a bailbond may be issued by the judge of a equal court other than that where the case is pending. that the judge failed to properly applied the rule regarding bailbond application. her failure to transmit the order of release and other supporting papers to the court where the case is pending constitutes another violation of the rules. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that “(b)ail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending. Sandiganbayan pursued with it's bail hearing granting the respondent a provisional liberty. Issue: Whether or not the grant of bail was proper . criminal complaints against the members of his family. Held: In this case the court agreed with the findings of OCA. Respondent judge should have forwarded the records pertaining to the bail bond immediately after she received the same. with any regional trial judge. Among them wasa Jinggoy Estrada who's charged with plunder.” The instant falsification case against accused was filed before the MTCC-Vigan. respondent judge clearly erred in entertaining the bail application despite knowledge of the pendency of the falsification case before the MTCC of Vigan. People vs Sandigan Bayan Facts: At the offshoot of the impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada. or. friends. Her daughter produce a copy of an order directing the provisional release of the accused issued by the responded judge from MTC sinait. NBI operatives tried to secure an alias warrant. Assuming arguendo that respondent judge rightfully granted bail to accused. Section 17. On the third time he applied for bail due to medical reasons. metropolitan trial judge. Following the said rule. A warrant of arrest was issued for Jinggoy. He filed an omnibus motion for bail arguing that no probable cause exist to put him on trial and he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Petitioner questions the decision.The proper recourse is by filing a motion to review with the appellate court. municipal trial judge. presided by Judge Ante. in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof. Complainant claims that the bailbond papers were not forwarded to the court where the case is pending. There was no showing of the unavailability of Judge Ante at that time. Upon where return. A warrant of arrest was not immediately issued as the respondent was residing in USA.

shall. these facts show very strongly that Milagros may have participated as principal by inducement in the murder of Jun Valerio. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong. Branch 4. the trial court had disregarded the glaring fact that the killer himself has confessed to the crime and has implicated Milagros as the mastermind. Eastern Samar . Dolores. the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is great. Article 114. before conviction. states. When taken in conjunction with the other evidence on record. seem to be a flight risk. The sister of the deceased. An information for murder was then filed against several respondents and uninformation for parricide was filed against the victims wife Milasgros. be bailable by sufficient sureties. or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Issue: Whether or not Milagros is entitled to bail Held: No. Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the person is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.Held: Yes.” Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt. She filed an application for bail claiming that the evidence of guilt against her was not strong. To begin with. Laarni Vallerio questioned the decision of RTC. as determined by Sandiganbayan. “No person charged with a capital offense. ever since the promulgation of the assailed Resolutions a little more than four (4) years ago. Jinggoy does not. The bail was granted. The appellate court clearly committed a reversible error in affirming the trial court’s decision granting bail to Milagros Valerio. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court.14 Here. regardless of the stage of the criminal action. All persons. People v Valerio Facts: Jun Valerio was shot and killed in Quezon City.” In this case. xxx. It was thus a grave error or a grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial court to grant her application for bail. Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 13 of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution mandates: “Section 13.

the judge who accepted the bail shall forward it. not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. however.” Section 11. Where.Facts: This administrative case arose from a memorandum1 an audit team of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted. order of release. 393 and 358. Dolores. Respondent judge undeniably erred in approving the bail and issuing the order of release. Judge Bugtas had no authority to accept the bail bonds in these cases. Judge Alvarez could have cancelled the property bond and issued the warrant of arrest much sooner had Judge Bugtas followed Section 19. Dumlao. The Court recognizes that not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law and that. In Español v. Judge Bugtas accepted the bail bond on 9 December 1999 and. In Criminal Case No. 442 SCRA 13 (2004). 454 SCRA 196 (2005). to the court where the case is pending. Quitorio (Quitorio). and (3) the accused were not arrested in Borongan. on the same day. the Court held that judges who approve applications for bail of accused whose cases are pending in other courts are guilty of gross ignorance of the law. now legal researcher. (2) there was no showing that Judge Alvarez was unavailable. Held: Since (1) Criminal Case Nos. but only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment. and other supporting papers to Judge Alvarez until after a subpoena duces tecum was issued on 29 January 2002. Eastern Samar (trial court) on 7 October 2004. The audit team reported on the judicial audit conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). the law is straightforward and the facts so evident. if committed in good faith. Judge Bugtas and Quitorio did not forward the bail. Branch 2. the Court held that: The requirements of Section 17(a). In Lim v. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court states that failure of the accused to cause the annotation of the lien on the property’s certificate of title within 10 days after the approval of the property bond shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the bond and re-arrest and detention of the accused. then officerin-charge Ernesto C. together with the order of release and other supporting papers. He is expected to know that certain requirements ought to be complied with before he can approve [the accused’s] bail and issue an order for his release. Branch 4. Section 19 is very clear: “When bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending. The audit team found that Judge Bugtas accepted the bail bonds in Criminal Case Nos. Rule 114 x x x must be complied with before a judge may grant bail. Eastern Samar signed the order of release. does not warrant administrative sanction. RTC. Issue: WON the granting of bail made by Judge bugtas were proper. both of which were pending before Judge Alvarez. The law involved is rudimentary that it leaves little room for error. . 393 and 358 were pending before Judge Alvarez. Mupas. 358. Borongan.