You are on page 1of 3

BAIL CASE DIGESTS July 27 respondent judge inhibited and ordered the case

forwarded to branch 33 presided over by Judge Bulado.

#2 225 SCRA 110 However, the latter also inhibited since prosecution witness
EVANGELINE L. DINAPOL, complainant, Alfredo Bulado is his first cousin or a relative within the
vs. fourth civil degree; Judge Bulado decreed the return of the
JUDGE ISMAEL O. BALDADO, Regional Trial Court, Branch case to the court of origin
45, Bais City, respondent. Respondent Judge alleges that (a) there is no clear and
direct proof to support the allegation that both accused
In this case complainant charges the respondent Judge with grave were in his chambers for, as a matter of fact, the Prosecutor
abuse of discretion, ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming a himself, in his Reply of 9 July 1992, admits that the said
member of the bench in entertaining the accuseds (spouses Crozoro allegation "is not of our personal knowledge"; (b) "not a
Palermo and Jovy Palermo) petition for bail and setting the same for single politician has made interventions or at least insinuate
hearing despite opposition of complaining witness. (sic) to intervene, in any case pending before him"; and (c)
there are parties working "behind the scene of this
Facts: malicious charge" against whom he will, in due time,
undertake legal recourse.
February 28, 1992 an information for murder was filed He did not, however, categorically deny the charge that the
before the respondent Judges sala. accused were in his chambers after the motion for bail was
March 3 - the respondent Judge issued a warrant for the filed, and the allegation that a congressman sponsored his
arrest of the accused. appointment to the Judiciary.
March 9 accused filed a motion to grant and fix bail
which respondent judge set for hearing on April 24 Issue: WON the accused in the said murder case can move for the
April 10 Evangeline Dinapol, the complaining witness granting of bail.
and a sister of the victim in the murder case filed a vigorous
opposition to the motion. Ruling:
April 24 accused did not appear; respondent Judge issued
No. The accused may not move for the granting of bail.
an order (a) denying the motion to grant bail on the ground
that the court "has not acquired jurisdiction over the person Section 1 Rule 114 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
of the accused," (b) ordering the issuance of an alias that Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of
warrant of arrest and (c) directing the PNP of Guihulngan the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
"to exert utmost efforts for the arrest of the accused appearance before any court as required under the conditions"
On that same date, however, the accused this time specified in Section 2 thereof. A person is considered to be in the
through Atty. Alfonso Briones filed an urgent motion for custody of the law (a) when he is arrested either by virtue of a warrant
the reconsideration of the 24 April 1992 Order on the of arrest issued pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112, or even without a
ground that "the accused are forthcoming, and are willing warrant under Section 5, Rule 113 in relation to Section 7, Rule 112
to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Court" of the Revised Rules of Court, or (b) when he has voluntarily
May 4 resetting the hearing of the motion to grant and fix submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to
bail for May 7, subject to the condition that "the accused the proper authorities. Elsewise stated, the purpose of requiring bail is
shall surrender to the custody of the court." Respondent to relieve an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet
Judge further directed the issuance of subpoenas to the secure his appearance at the trial. An accused can move for the
prosecution witnesses and warned the prosecution "that granting of bail only if the court has acquired jurisdiction over his
failure to present evidence on said date without justifiable person.
reason will be considered as lack of strength of its
However, "only those persons who have been either arrested,
May 7 accused failed to appear on the set date; the
detained or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever have
respondent Judge issued on the said date an order resetting,
occasion to seek the benefits of said provision. Thus, it logically
once again, the hearing of the motion for 30 June and 1 and follows that no petition for bail can be validly entertained for as long
3 July 1992. This extension was, however, subjected to the as the petitioner is NOT in the custody of the law.
condition that "on or before June 30, 1992, accused shall
have voluntarily surrendered and submitted themselves to
Since the accused in Criminal Case No. 775-G were not arrested by
the custody of this court
virtue of both the original warrant arrest and the alias warrant of
June 19 - warrant had not been duly served as the accused
arrest, and did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the trial
"are not found here in Guihulngan, Negros Oriental," and
court, they had no standing in court to file a motion for bail. Nor did
the information gathered that they were temporarily
the court have any business setting the same for hearing. By setting
residing in Cebu City proved to be false
the said motion for hearing despite the fact that his court had not yet
Prosecution filed a "Motion Entreating Hon. Ismael O.
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused, the respondent
Baldado to Consider Whether or Not to Continue Presiding
Judge blatantly disregarded established rule and settled jurisprudence.
Over the Above-Entitled Case." Alleged therein that the
While he subsequently rectified his error by denying the motion in
respondent Judge had acted with patent bias and partiality
his Order of 24 April 1992, he nevertheless backtracked by granting
in the accused's favor as may be gleaned from his (Judge's)
the motion for reconsideration and setting anew the hearing of the
actuations as above-indicated, and from the fact that "the
motion for bail this time with a warning to the prosecution that its
two (2) accused . . . have even been seen conspicuously
failure to present evidence on the scheduled date "will be considered
after the filing of the petition for bail inside the Chambers
as lack of strength of its evidence." We find neither rhyme nor reason
of this Court [RTC] accompanied by a younger brother of a
for this warning because if there was any party to be warned, it
should have been the accused who had abused the liberality of the Ruling:
respondent Judge and belittled the authority of the court.
No. A person released on bail do not have an unrestricted right to

#9 142 SCRA 149

A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from
RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner, leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature
vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and function of a bail bond.

Facts: Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security
required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of
Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance
stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.
Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Having transferred the
management of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of
no officer-position in said business, but acts as president of the the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to
former corporation. put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in
custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the
Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may
Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction, petitioner, who was then in require of him.
the United States, came home, and together with his co-stockholders,
filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at
appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid
Securities, Inc., but likewise for Trans-Insular Management, Inc. The restriction on his right to travel.
petition relative to the Manotoc Securities, Inc., docketed as SEC
Case No. 001826, entitled, "In the Matter of the Appointment of a Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without
Management Committee for Manotoc Securities, Inc., Teodoro sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.
Kalaw, Jr., Ricardo Manotoc, Jr., Petitioners", was granted and a
management committee was organized and appointed. The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or
filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the
Pending disposition of SEC Case No. 001826, the Securities and custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in
Exchange Commission requested the then Commissioner of their charge to keepers of his own selection. Such custody has been
Immigration, Edmundo Reyes, not to clear petitioner for departure. regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The
sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the
When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the
Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six of its clients filed six state. 14
separate criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul
Leveriza, Jr., as president and vice-president, respectively, of If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the
Manotoc Securities, Inc. In due course, corresponding criminal state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merely
charges for estafa were filed by the investigating fiscal. derive such right, and whose jurisdiction over the person of the
principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. In
In all cases, petitioner has been admitted to bail in the total amount of fact, this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner
P105,000.00, with FGU Instance Corporation as surety. himself, notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to
leave the country, for he would not have filed the motion for
On March 1, 1982, petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a permission to leave the country in the first place, if it were otherwise.
motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country," stating
as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to
In this case, petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed
his business transactions and opportunities." 1 The prosecution
travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. Petitioner merely
opposed said motion and after due hearing, both trial judges denied alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash
the same. indemnities. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country
without the assent of the surety because in accepting a bail bond or
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before CA
recognizance, the government impliedly agrees "that it will not take
which was then dismissed. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of the
ruling, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. sureties or affect their remedies against him. Under this rule, the
Pending resolution of the petition to which we gave due course on surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be discharged by a
April 14, 1983 6 petitioner filed on August 15, 1984 a motion for stipulation inconsistent with the conditions thereof, which is made
leave to go abroad pendente lite. 7 In his motion, petitioner stated that without his assent. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or
his presence in Louisiana, U.S.A. is needed in connection "with the agreement to postpone the trial until after the final disposition of
obtention of foreign investment in Manotoc Securities, Inc." 8 He other cases, or to permit the principal to leave the state or
attached the letter dated August 9, 1984 of the chief executive officer country." 16 Thus, although the order of March 26, 1982 issued by
of the Exploration Company of Louisiana, Inc., Mr. Marsden W. Judge Pronove has been rendered moot and academic by the
Miller 9 requesting his presence in the United States to "meet the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal cases pending before said
people and companies who would be involved in its investments." judge, we see the rationale behind said order.

Issue: WON a person facing a criminal indictment and The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an
provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel. absolute right. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states:
The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health.

To our mind, the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail
constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted
constitutional provision.