RICHARD DE LA CAMARA v HON.

MANUEL ENAGE
41 SCRA 3 |. September 17, 1971
Fernando, J.

Doctrine: A bail is solely made to insure the attendance of the accused for the subsequent
trial. While the courts have the discretion to rule on the question of bail, the same cannot
impose conditions which would render nugatory the constitutional right to bail.

FACTS
The present case is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of the order of
respondent Judge Enage which fixed the bail of the petitioner at P 1,195,200.00 for allegedly being
repugnant of the constitutional mandate prohibiting excessive bail. The facts would show that
petitioner was arrested and detained for his alleged participation in the killing of fourteen and
wounding of twelve other laborers and that multiple cases of murder and frustrated murder was
filed against him before the RTC. Petitioner then submitted his application for bail claiming that
there was no evidence that would proof his participation to the commission of the crime. The said
application for bail was granted but respondent judge set the amount to P1,195,200.00. Upon
hearing of the said matter, Secretary of Justice Abad sent a telegram to respondent expressing that
the bond required is excessive. Respondent remained adamant, hence this petition.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the bail imposed was excessive- YES.
It is a well-settled doctrine that every person is bailable except when charged with capital
offenses if the evidence of guilt is strong. This right is rooted on the presumption of innocence
in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom. However, it is
also possible that a person charged with a crime can frustrate the administration of justice by
simply not appearing before the Court. Therefore, it is said that bail is intended to insure the
appearance of the accused for subsequent trial. In the present case, the bail imposed amounting
to P1,195,200.00 is clearly excessive. Since only two offenses were charged against the
petitioner (murder and frustrated murder), the amount required as bail could not possibly
exceed P50,000.00 for murder and P25,000.00 for frustrated murder.
Moreover, the reliance of the judge on Villasenor v Abano to justify his decision is
misplaced. In that case, the 10 guidelines in fixing of bail was summarized namely (1) ability
of the accused to give bail; (2) nature of the offense; (3) penalty for the offense charged; (4)
character and reputation of the accused; (5) health of the accused; (6) character and strength of
the evidence; (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial; (8) forfeiture of other bonds; (9)
whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (10) if the accused is under
bond for appearance at trial in other cases. Applying the same to the present case, the
respondent judge ignored the fact that while the court has the discretion to rule on the question
of bail, it must still take note that where conditions imposed upon a defendant seeking bail
would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the constitutional right to bail, the Court
will not hesitate to exercise its supervisory powers to provide the required remedy. This is
because the imposition of an excessive amount would only mean that provision liberty is
beyond the reach of the accused which may give rise to an escape out of desperation.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for being moot and academic. Without
pronouncement as to costs,

SERAPIO C2021 | 1