Right to bail - MAD
RIGHT TO BAIL Exceptions to right to bail
Sec. 13, Art. III: “All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall,
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. ’’
What is a bail?
 Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance
before any court as may be required [Rule 114, Sec. 1, Rules of Court],
 The right to bail emanates from the right to be presumed innocent.
When may the right to bail be invoked?
 The right to bail may be invoked once detention commences even if no
formal charges have yet to be filed.
 However, it is a basic principle that the right to bail can be availed of
only by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of
his liberty, and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a
petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed
 In People v. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130, it was held that the right to
bail cannot be denied one who is charged with rebellion, a bailable
offense.
 In the cases when bail is authorized, it should be granted before
arraignment, otherwise, the accused may be precluded from filing a
motion to quash. Furthermore, the court would be assured of the
presence of the accused at
 the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at
any stage of the proceeding
Note: Always check if what the charged offense is. If it is not punishable by
reclusion perpetua, it is always bailable regardless of the result of the crime.
1. When charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua for
higher) and evidence of guilt is strong.
 In People v. Fortes, it was held that if an accused who is
charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is
convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a
penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the
accused nor a matter of discretion on the part of the court; an
application for bail must be denied.
2. Traditionally, the right to bail is not available to the military.
 In Comendador V. de Villa, it was held that traditionally, the
right to bail has not been recognized and is not available to the
military, as an exception to the Bill of Rights. This much was
suggested in Arula v. Espino, 28 SCRA 540, where the Court
observed that "the right to speedy trial is given more emphasis
in the military where the right to bail does not exist”. The
denial; of the right to bail to the military does not violate the
equal protection clause because there is substantial distinction
between the military and civilians.
 The unique structure of the military should be enough reason
to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on
the right to bail.
Bail Hearing is ALWAYS necessary
 To determine the amount of bail. (Sec. 6, Rule 114)
Power to prohibit from leaving the Philippines those persons admitted to bail
 In Manotoc v. CA, a court has the power to prohibit a person admitted
to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of
the nature and function of a bail bond.
 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all
times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid
restriction on his right to travel. If the accused were allowed to leave
1
Right to bail - MAD
the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the
reach of the courts
Duty of the Court when accused is charged with an offense punishably by
reclusion perpetua or higher
 In Baylon v. Judge Sisón, hearing on the motion for bail must be
conducted by the judge to determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong. Whether the motion is resolved in summary proceedings
or in the course of regular trial, the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to present all the evidence that it may wish to introduce on
the probable guilt of the accused before the court resolves the motion
for bail.
Even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence, or fails to interpose
an objection to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to
conduct a hearing, or ask searching and clarificatory questions from
which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or lack of it,
against the accused.
 In Basco v. Judge Rapatalo, the Supreme Court reiterated that in the
application for bail of a person charged with a capital offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a
hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court,
must actually be conducted to determine whether or not evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong.
"A summary hearing means such brief and speedy method of receiving
and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent
with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the weight of
evidence for the purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court does not
sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight
that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against the accused, nor
will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence
may be therein offered and admitted. The course of inquiry may be left
to the discretion of the court which may confine itself to receiving such
evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary
thoroughness in the examination and cross examination."
 The hearing on a petition for bail need not at all times precede
arraignment, because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by
virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for bail as soon as
he is deprived of his liberty, even before a complaint or information is
filed against him. When bail is a matter of right, the accused may apply
for and be granted bail even prior to arraignment. Even when the
charge is a capital offense, if the court finds that the accused is entitled
to bail because the evidence of guilt is not strong, he may be granted
provisional liberty even before arraignment.
What is strong evidence?
 Means accused will probably be punished; not whether the evidence
establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows
evident guilt, or great presumption of guilt.
When is bail a matter of right?
 All persons in custody shall before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court
in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court and before conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right,
with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as prescribed
by law or this Rule.
When is bail a matter of discretion?
 Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, bail becomes discretionary.
(Sec. 5, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
 Should the court grant the application, 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.
2
Right to bail - MAD
When shall bail be denied?
 In People v. Fortes, When the accused is charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher and
evidence of guilt is strong, then bail shall be denied, as it is neither a
matter of right or of discretion
 If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years but
not more than twenty years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail
previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other
similar circumstances: ( R E C F U ) (Bail denying circumstances)
a) that the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration
b) that the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence or has violated the conditions of
his bail without valid justification
c) that the accused committed the offense while on probation,
parole, or under conditional pardon
d) that the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
e) that there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal,
the accused may commit another crime
 Denying bail to an accused charged with a capital offense where
evidence of guilt is strong, applies with equal force to the appellant
who, though convicted of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, was nevertheless originally charged
with a capital offense.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party,
review the resolution of the RTC after notice to the adverse party in
either case. (Sec. 5, Rule 114, Rules of Court)
Note: The conduct of petitioner in applying for bail indicated that he had waived
his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted
by respondent judge (Luna v. Plaza, G.R. No.L‐27511, Nov. 29, 1968) The right to
bail is available from the very moment of arrest (which may be before or after the
filing of formal charges in court) up to the time of conviction by final judgment
(which means after appeal). No charge need be filed formally before one can file
for bail, so long as one is under arrest.
Who are not entitled to bail? ( R A M )
1. Persons charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or
death, when evidence of guilt is strong
2. Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending
appeal.
3. Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial
What are the factors to be considered in setting the amount of bail?
(F A N P C – W A F F P)
1. Financial ability of accused
2. Age and health of accused
3. Nature and circumstances of offense
4. Penalty for offense
5. Character and reputation of accused
6. Weight of evidence against him
7. Probability of appearance at trial
8. Forfeiture of other bail
9. Whether he was a fugitive from justice when arrested
10. Pendency of other cases where he is on bail
Right to bail and extradition
 In Government of the U.S. v. Judge Puruganan and Mark Jimenez,
the Supreme Court denied with finality Mark Jimenez’s motion for
reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision to declare null and void
the order of Judge Puruganan granting bail to Mark Jimenez. The court
said that, as suggested by the use of the word “conviction”, the
constitutional provision on bail 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
3
Right to bail - MAD

constitutional right to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in Waiver of the right to bail
favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of  In People v. Judge Donato, The right to bail is another of the
freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal unless his guilt constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right which is personal
be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. It follows that the constitutional to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public
provision on bail will not apply to a case of extradition where the order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third
presumption of innocence is not an issue. That the offenses for which person with a right recognized by law.
Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is  ". . . These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
not an argument to grant him one in the present case. To stress, presence of counsel." This provision merely particularizes the form and
extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the manner of the waiver; it, nevertheless, clearly suggests that the other
offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the rights may be waived in some other form or manner provided such
courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition waiver will not offend Article 6 of the Civil Code.
court.
Bail and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
 However in Government of HongKong v. Hon. Felixberto T. Olalia,  The right to bail is not impaired by the suspension of the privilege of
Jr., where the Court said that it cannot ignore the modern trend in the writ of habeas corpus [Sec. 13, Art. III].
public international law which places a primacy on the worth of the
individual person and the sanctity of human rights. While the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty, its principles are now
recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the
international community. This Court, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, in
granting bail to a prospective deportee, held that under the
Constitution the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights are part of the law of the land. If bail can be granted in
deportation cases, considering that the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be
invoked in extradition cases.

 A new standard, “clear and convincing evidence”, should be used in

granting bail in extradition cases. The standard is lower than proof
beyond reasonable doubt, but higher than preponderance of evidence.
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.

4
Right to bail - MAD

Table on how bail should be considered (Atty David)

BAIL WHEN:
MATTER OF RIGHT MATTER OF SHALL BE DENIED
DISCRETION
1. All persons in 1. Upon conviction 1. When the accused
custody shall by the RTC of an is charged with a
before conviction offense not capital offense, or
by the MTC punishable by an offense
2. All persons in death, reclusion punishable by
custody shall after perpetua, or life reclusion perpetua
conviction by the imprisonment or higher and
MTC evidence of guilt
3. Before conviction is strong
by the Regional 2. After conviction
Trial Court of an by the RTC of an
offense not offense not not
punishable by punishable by
death, reclusion death, reclusion
perpetua or life perpetua or life
imprisonment imprisonment but
4. Before conviction there is any of the
by the Regional bail denying
Trial Court of an circumstances.
offense punishable (Check page 3)
by death, reclusion 3. After conviction
perpetua or life of RTC of an
imprisonment but offense punishable
the EVIDENCE OF by death, reclusion
GUILT IS NOT perpetua or life
STRONG. imprisonment.