You are on page 1of 5


(A). Bail definition

Under Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure the Bail defined as the
security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions
hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond,
cash deposit, or recognizance.
(B). Kinds of bail and its application
a. Corporate surety. Any domestic or foreign corporation licensed as a surety in
accordance with law and currently authorized to act as such may provide bail by a
bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer duly authorized by its board
of directors.



A Property Bond is an undertaking constituted as a lien on the real property given

as security for the amount of the bail. Upon approval of the bond, the court shall
order the accused to cause the annotation of the lien within ten (10) days on the
original torrens title on file with the Register of Deeds, if the land is registered, or
if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the space provided therefor, in the
office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on
the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial and municipal
assessor concerned. Non-compliance with the order shall be sufficient cause for
cancellation of the property bond.
Cash Bond or Deposit of cash as bail. The accused or any person acting in his
behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue, or
provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court or
recommended by the prosecutor who investigated r filed the case, and upon
submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a written undertaking showing
compliance with the requirements of Section 2 hereof, the accused shall be
discharged from custody. Money thus deposited shall be considered as bail and
applied to the payment of any fine and costs and the excess, if any, shall be
returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.

No, the bail cannot be subject to negotiation because Under Rule 114 Section 9, sets forth
the following:
Amount of bail; guidelines. The judge who issued the warrant or granted the
application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not
limited to the following guidelines:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty of the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;

(f) The weight of the evidence against the accused;

(g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Therefore, the court has the discretion in fixing the bail necessary.

(A) Yes. Under Circular No. 95-96, is states that: Duty during weekends and
holidays All Executive Judges, whether in single sala courts or multiple sala stations
shall assign, by rotation, Metropolitan Trial Judges and Municipal Circuit Judges within
their respective territorial areas to be on duty on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
assisted by a skeletal force, also on rotation, primarily to act on petitions for bail and
other urgent matters.
On Saturday afternoons, Sundays and non-working holidays, any Judge may act on
bailable offenses conformably with the provisions of Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of
All Executive Judges, whether in single sala or multiple sala shall remain on duty on
Saturday mornings.
(B) No. As held in the case of Feliciano v. Pasicolan, that the purpose of bail is to
secure ones release and it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Thus,
bail is the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of
law. The rationale behind this special rule on bail is that it discourages and prevents resort
to the former pernicious practice wherein the accused could just send another in his stead
to post his bail, without recognizing the jurisdiction of the court by his personal


appearance therein and compliance with the requirements therefor.

Insofar as the validity of the warrant of arrest is concerned, the same is valid until
served or recalled. This was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of People of
the Philippines vs. Cesar Givera (G.R. No. 132159, January 18, 2001), as follows:
The Accused-appellant claims that his arrest at the East Avenue Medical Center on May
4, 1996 was made without a warrant. This is not true. He was arrested by virtue of a
warrant issued by the court on April 27, 1995. However, as the records show, the warrant
of arrest was returned unserved by the arresting officer on June 7, 1995 as accusedappellant could not be found. He was finally found only on May 4, 1996. Now, no alias
warrant of arrest is needed to make the arrest. Unless specifically provided in the warrant,

the same remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed. The ten-day period
provided in Rule 113, 4 is only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a
return to the court.

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 100
Caloocan City
-versusCrim Case No. 12345
for Frustrated Murder
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x


Accused, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully

1. That accused is currently detained at the Makati City Jail for the charge of Frustrated Murder
and has been behind bars since his arrest on August 1, 2013;
2. That no bail has been recommended for his temporary release on the assumption that the
evidence of guilt is strong;
3. That the prosecution's evidence of guilt against accused, however, is weak as there is no
direct evidence that will point to the accused to have committed the the charges against
him. The records will show that accused was malicious implicated in the case through the
sworn statements of SINU NGALING and BULA AN who subsequently recanted their
testimonies and confessed, among others, that they were made to sign the "affidavits of
witnesses" against their will. (copies of the Affidavits of Recantation are hereto attached as
Annexes "A" and "B")
4. That there is no other physical or documentary evidence to show that accused is guilty of the
crime charged;.

5. That the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the prosecution, and since
this fact is not satisfactorily shown, accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right during the
pendency of the criminal case.
WHEREFORE, upon prior notice and hearing, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that accused AKU SADO be allowed to post bail for his temporary liberty pending trial
of the criminal charge against him.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
15 August 2013
City of Makati.
Counsel for the Accused
Regional Trial Court, Branch 100
Caloocan City
Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court on August 27, 2013 at
8:30 in the morning for its favorable consideration and approval.

Copy furnished by personal service:

Office of the City Prosecutor, Makati City
Private Prosecutor
420 Zamora Street, Pasay City