BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION 13

Section 13. “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.”

Right to Bail

PEOPLE vs. NITCHA – “appeal / right vs. discretion” Facts are not provided. Even if the accused has posted bail, once
the decision of conviction is promulgated, the accused is subject to re-incarceration. Bail must not be granted
during the pendency of appeal, because it implies that the trial court established guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Rules to remember:

1. Bail is a matter of right if the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua.
2. If the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, bail is a matter of discretion depending
on whether evidence of guilt is strong.

DD: Under the present state of law, when the case is on appeal, bail becomes a matter of discretion.

CARDINES vs. ROSETE – “illegal recruitment / life imprisonment / bailable under 1985 Rules” Judge Rosete is being
charged for misconduct and ignorance of the law for granting bail to Erlie & Emilio Claro, both charged for illegal
recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage, punishable by life imprisonment under the Labor Code.
The applicable law then was the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the said rules, the only exceptions for
denying the right to bail are offenses punishable by capital punishment, or reclusion perpetua – in both cases
evidence of guilt must be strong. There was no mention of life imprisonment. Reclusion perpetua and life
imprisonment are not synonymous. Reclusion perpetua is covered by the Revised Penal Code, has a definite
duration, and has accessory penalties; life imprisonment is covered by special laws, and has neither a definite
duration nor accessory penalties. Thus the accuseds are entitled to bail.

DD: Administrative Circular No. 12-94 amended the said rules; life imprisonment is no longer bailable provided
evidence of guilt is strong, but the same cannot apply retroactively as it is not favorable to the accused.

PADERANGA vs. CA – “must be under custody / constructive custody” When Ely Roxas was implicated for multiple
murder, his counsel was Miguel Paderanga, his former employer. Strangely, Roxas implicated Paderanga alleging
that he was the mastermind behind the “Bucag Massacre.” An arrest warrant was issued for Paderanga but before
the same can be served, he filed a Motion for Admission to Bail. He was, however, then confined in a hospital and
manifested that he was submitting himself to the custody of the law; the prosecution offered no objection. He
managed to appear before the court to post bail as well as attend the hearings. Bail cannot be posted unless
custody is acquired, either through arrest or voluntary surrender. Its purpose is to relieve the accused from the
rigors of imprisonment until his conviction, and yet secure appearance during trial.

While it is true that Paderanga posted bail before he was actually arrested, nevertheless, given the factual
circumstances, he was constructively under custody. He voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of the
law and the jurisdiction of the trial court. Given that the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, the
grant of bail is discretionary upon the court depending on the strength of evidence. A trial, summary in nature, must
thus be held so that the prosecution may present evidence, and the court must justify the grant or denial of bail based
on the evidence.

YAP vs. CA – “P 5.5 million bail / excessive” Francisco Yap was convicted by the trial court for estafa; he appealed the
decision and prayed for provisional liberty pending appeal. The court required him to post bail amounting to P 5.5
million corresponding to the amount he allegedly embezzled. He was also required to secure a certification from the
mayor that he was a resident of that area, and that should he transfer, he should inform the court and the
complainant. He prays that the amount be reduced to P 40,000 according to the Bail Bond Guide, but the appellate
court denied his petition.
 The apparent rationale is to prevent him from leaving the country during the pendency of the case considering that he
himself admitted having gone out several times. While the condition requiring him to present a mayor’s
certification is reasonable, the amount of bail is clearly excessive. Imposing excessive bail renders illusory
the right to bail altogether. The Supreme Court reduced the amount of the bail to P 200,000.00.

NARCISO vs. STA. ROMANA-CRUZ – “parricide / hearing is mandatory / duties of the judge” Narciso was charged w/
parricide, punishable by reclusion perpetua. He was granted bail by the trial court only 10 minutes after he filed his
motion to post bail. The prosecution objects. In order to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong, a hearing
is necessary – whether summary or otherwise. This affords the prosecution the opportunity to submit the
evidence before the court. Ten minutes could not have possibly been sufficient to receive or evaluate any
evidence. The judge practically denied the complainant the opportunity to be heard, in violation of due process. The
following are the duties of the trial judge in an application for bail when the offense is punishable by reclusion
perpetua, capital punishment, or life imprisonment:

1. To inform the prosecution or require him to submit a recommendation

2. To conduct a hearing, even if the prosecution refuses or fails to present evidence
3. Decide if evidence of guilt is strong based on the evidence presented
4. Approve or deny provisional liberty based on the strength of the evidence

PEOPLE vs. CABRAL – “evident guilt / great presumption / reviewable by the SC” Cabral was charged w/ rape
qualified w/ the use of deadly weapon w/c is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The grant of bail is thus
discretionary upon the court depending on whether evidence of guilt is strong. The test is not proof beyond
reasonable doubt but rather whether the evidence shows evident guilt or great presumption of guilt
depending on the facts, circumstances, and evidence presented. While the same is discretionary upon the trial
courts, the SC will not hesitate to overturn the decision of there is grave abuse of discretion.

“Evident proof” means clear and strong evidence w/c leads a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment to the
conclusion that the offense has been committed and the accused is the guilty agent and that he will be punished
capitally if the law is administered. “Presumption great” exists when the circumstances manifest a strong and
convincing inference of guilt excluding any other probable conclusion.

SERAPIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – “arraignment is not a prerequisite to bail” The Sandiganbayan erred in ordering the
arraignment of Serapio before proceeding w/ the hearing for bail. As soon as a person is deprived of liberty,
either through arrest or surrender, the right to bail accrues. He need not await arraignment before filing a
petition for bail. In case the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, capital punishment, or life
imprisonment, the petition for bail may be heard ahead of arraignment.

US vs. JUDGE PURUGANAN – “Mark Jimenez / extradition is not criminal in nature / no bail” While his case was
pending in the US, Mark Jimenez fled to the Phils. Thus, the US seeks to extradite him. During the extradition
proceedings, Jimenez applied for bail. Extradition proceedings are sui generis. They are not criminal
proceedings w/c call into operation the rights of the accused under the Bill of Rights. Thus the right to bail
does not accrue. The only question that has to be resolved in such proceedings is whether he is extraditable and
the extraditing country complied w/ the treaty. It is only a measure of international judicial assistance, usually
summary in nature, and requires merely a prima facie case. Final discretion lies w/ the President. It is not concerned
w/ his guilt or innocence, w/c will be tried separately by the extraditing country. Further, Jimenez has demonstrated
the capacity and will to flee, w/c is precisely what the Extradition Treaty guards against.

The general rule is that in extradition proceedings, bail is NOT a matter of right. It may only be granted as an
exception if:

1. The defendant can demonstrate that he is not a “flight risk,” and

2. Exceptional, humanitarian, or compelling circumstances.

Jimenez bears the burden of proving the existence of any of the 2 exceptions.

Dissent of Justice Puno

From the moment a person is arrested, the guarantees under the Bill of Rights operate, including his right to
bail. This is more in accord w/ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.

PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO & RODOLFO SALAS – “if matter of right, no hearing needed / waiver” Rodolfo Salas,
along w/ Josefina Cruz & Jose Conception were arrested and charged for robbery. At that time, the applicable law
prescribed a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. EO No. 187 was enacted w/c reduced the penalty to prision
mayor, thus making the same a bailable offense. In this case, bail has become a matter of right. If bail is a matter of
right, the prosecution loses the right to present evidence for the denial thereof. The court has also
repeatedly held that the right to bail may be availed even during the pendency of the appeal. However, the
 court erred in fixing the bond to P 30,000 and then later changing it to P 50,000 w/o hearing the prosecution. There
are guidelines that must be complied with. To this extent, a hearing should be held but only for the purpose of
determining the amount of bail.

However, the right to bail can be waived; and there is such a waiver in this case made by Rodolfo Salas. A
compromise was entered into whereby the arrest warrants for Cruz & Conception were to be lifted but Salas was to
remain in legal custody. Custody means nothing less than physical custody. Such a waiver is not contrary to law,
good customs, public order, and public policy and is not prejudicial to any third person. The right to bail is a
personal right. The waiver was intelligently and knowingly entered into and w/ the assistance of counsel.

DE LA CAMARA vs. ENAGE – “mayor / murders / excessive bail / guidelines for computing” Mayor Ricardo de la
Camara of Magsaysay, Misamis was arrested for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. He applied for bail
claiming that there was no evidence to link him to the crime. The prosecution failed to present evidence but Judge
Enage fixed the bail at some P 1.2 million. De la Camara assailed the order of the judge; however, he later escaped
from jail. His petition to nullify the said order has thus become moot. Nevertheless, the court found that the amount
of bail fixed was clearly excessive. It has the effect of rendering nugatory or illusory the right to bail. At most,
the bail should have been fixed at P 50,000.00, P25,000.00 for each charge.

The following rules must be considered in fixing the amount of bail:

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 evidence
7. Probability for the accused to appear on trial
8. Forfeiture of other bonds
9. Whether accused was a fugitive when arrested
10. If the accused is under bond for appearance in other cases

Additional Case
RODRIGUEZ vs. JUDGE – “extradition / cancellation of bail, notice & hearing / not flight risk / special
circumstances” Eduardo and Imelda Rodriguez offered themselves for voluntary extradition; they posted a cash
bond worth P 1 million each. They were granted bail by the trial court. The US government moved for
reconsideration; the SC directed the trial court to decide the matter based on the outcome of the Mark Jimenez Case.
Following the ruling therein, the trial court cancelled the bail without prior notice and hearing and issued the
corresponding warrants of arrest. Eduardo, meanwhile was already in the US attending to his case, thus the case is
moot as far as he is concerned. It is Imelda’s case that stands to be affected by this decision.

The cancellation of Imelda’s bail, w/o prior notice and hearing, is a violation of her right to due process. She
is not a flight risk and does not pose any danger to the community; hence her bail could not be cancelled w/o notice
and hearing. While, it is true that notice and hearing is not required before issuance of a warrant of arrest for
extradition cases because it would only tip the extraditee and cause him to flee, the same principle does not apply
here.

Special circumstances must be considered. Imelda is in her sixties and under medical treatment, she offered
herself for voluntary extradition, she surrendered her passport and there is an existing hold-departure order against
her.

She falls clearly w/in the 2 exceptions where a bail may be granted to an extraditee: (1) she is not a flight risk, and (2)
the attendance of special and humanitarian considerations such as her health and age.

DD: A “flight risk” is a person who demonstrates the capacity and the will to escape.