LAW 124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Second Semester, AY 2019–2020

ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS

ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN, August 18, 2015, G.R. No. 213847  

Facts: Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, among with several others, was charged with plunder by the
Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan for his alleged involvement in the diversion
and misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). When
Enrile filed a motion praying that he be allowed to post bail should probable cause be found
against him, the Sandiganbayan denied it on the ground of its prematurity considering that Enrile
had not yet then voluntarily surrendered or been placed under the custody of the law, and
thereafter ordered Enrile's arrest.

Issue: WON Enrile is entitled to bail – YES.

Ruling: According to the Court, there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances
that authorize the grant of bail even if the offense charged is supposedly nonbailable. Taking into
consideration the accused's social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered
to the authorities upon his being charged in court, the unlikelihood of his flight or escape and the
currently fragile state of his health present compelling justification for his admission to bail.

Generally, an accused can avail of bail before being convicted of any criminal offense, unless he
is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. The determination of whether or not
evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable
with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as in the case of Enrile, lies within the discretion of
the trial court. However, such discretion may be exercised only upon a hearing with notice to the
Prosecution.

Even without said hearing, the Court granted bail to Enrile using as basis the purpose of bail –
that is, to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the
court – vis-à-vis the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seeking to uphold the fundamental
human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person.

During his testimony, Dr. Jose C. Gonzales, the Director of the Philippine General Hospital
(PGH), stated that Enrile’s existing medical conditions pose a threat to his life, especially when
considering the limited medical facilities in the PNP General Hospital. This reason, together with
Enrile’s voluntary surrender, satisfied the requirement of special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances that authorize the grant of bail.

The Court further held that bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime
charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued
incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying
him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive
incarceration during the trial.

CORTES V. CATRAL, September 10, 1997, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387

 LAW 124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Second Semester, AY 2019–2020
ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS
Facts: Flaviano Cortes charged Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with
Gross Ignorance of the Law because the latter allegedly granted bail in murder and illegal
possession of firearms cases without hearing, and granted bail that was too low in a homicide
case. The Office of the Court Administrator thereafter recommended the dismissal of such
administrative sanction.

Issue: WON Judge Catral was correct in not conducting a hearing because the prosecutor opted
not to introduce evidence – NO.

Ruling: When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in
the discretion of the court, not only to take into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, but primarily to determine the existence of strong evidence of
guilt or lack of it, against the accused.

In the case of People v. Ahmed Duerme y Paypon, et al., accused Ahmed Duerme together with
four other persons were charged with the crime of murder. The provincial prosecutor
recommended the sum of P200,000.00 as bailbond for each accused. It was not stated whether a
hearing was actually conducted on the application for bail, but the court issued a warrant of
arrest and fixed the amount of P200,000.00 for the provisional liberty of each of the
accused. Upon the accused Duerme filing of a motion for reduction of bail, Judge Catral issued
an order granting a reduced bailbond of P50,000.00 inasmuch as the evidence was not so strong
to warrant the fixation of said amount. The order granting the reduced bailbond, however, did
not contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution.

In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, accused Bumanglag was charged with murder.
When Bumanglag filed a petition for bail, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and
recommended the sum of P200,000.00 instead. Judge Catral, acting on said recommendation,
issued an order granting bail to the accused in the sum of P200,000.00. Upon Bumanglag’s filing
of a motion to reduce bail, the public prosecutor manifested that he had no objection to the sum
of P50,000.00 as bail for the accused. Judge Catral then issued another order reducing the bail
bond from P200,000.00 to P50,000.00 as recommended by the prosecutor. However, as in the
Duerme case, Judge Catral’s order did not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the
prosecution.

Judge Catral, in the abovementioned cases, argued that although he conducted bail hearings
initially, the public prosecutor opted not to introduce evidence, so he merely adopted the latter’s
recommendations regarding the amount of bailbond for the accused. However, the Court has
already reiterated in the recent case of Inocencio Basco v. Judge Leo M. Rapatalo, that the judge
is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a
comment or leave the application of bail to the sound discretion of the court. A hearing is
likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
grant and fix bail. The rationale for this is that the determination of whether or not the evidence
of guilt against the accused is strong is dependent upon the evidence submitted to the court
during the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence
cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, the evidence is
required to be submitted to the court, with the petitioner having the right of cross examination
and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal.
 LAW 124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Second Semester, AY 2019–2020
ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS
To guide the courts as to the steps to be taken, the Court laid out the guidelines below:

1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section
18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended);

2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the
guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound
discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of
the prosecution;

4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.

Guide Question(s): Why is it still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask
searching questions even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or
leave the application for bail to the sound discretion of the court, or even if the prosecution
refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail?

ANSWER(S):

Being mandatory and indispensable, a bail hearing must nonetheless be set by the court wherein the judge
can ask searching and clarificatory questions for the purpose of determining the existence of strong
evidence against the accused, and issue the order, after such hearing, should there be a finding that the
evidence against the accused is strong. The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against
the accused is strong is dependent upon the evidence submitted to the court during the hearing. Since the
discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly
exhibited or produced before the court, the prosecution must submit the evidence to the court, with the
petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal. Judges who
do not conduct a hearing shall be held administratively liable as such constitutes gross ignorance of the law
and the rules.

SERAPIO V. SANDIGANBAYAN, January 28, 2003, G. R. Nos. 148468, 148769, 149116

Facts: Edward Serapio was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal Counsel of the
Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, to which former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson
donated P200 million. When Singson accused former President Joseph Estrada and his cohorts
of engaging in several illegal activities, Serapio was included among the defendants in
subsequent complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman,
upon finding probable cause, charged the defendants, including Serapio, with the crime of
plunder before the Sandiganbayan. Serapio filed an Urgent Petition for Bail. The Ombudsman
opposed said petition, saying that Serapio should have been arraigned first before he can avail of
bail, and thereafter filed a motion for joint bail hearings of Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada, and
Serapio.
 LAW 124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Second Semester, AY 2019–2020
ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS
Issues:
1. WON Serapio should have been arraigned first before the hearings of his petition for bail
may be conducted – NO.
2. WON a joint hearing of the petition for bail of Separio and his co-accused is mandatory –
NO.
3. WON Serapio is entitled to bail notwithstanding that he is charged with a capital offense –
NO ANSWER.

Ruling:
- The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on his
petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his
liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his
arraignment before filing a petition for bail. To condition the grant of bail to an accused
on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between
(1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to
quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a
motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail.
This would undermine his constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon a valid
complaint or Information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.
o This does not mean, however, that the hearing on a petition for bail should 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.
- While a joint hearing of two separate petitions for bail by two accused will of course
avoid duplication of time and effort of both the prosecution and the courts and minimizes
the prejudice to the accused, it is not mandatory when it will be prejudicial to one of the
accused.
o There is no provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Rules of
Procedure of the Sandiganbayan governing the hearings of two or more petitions
for bail filed by different accused or that a petition for bail of an accused be heard
simultaneously with the trial of the case against the other accused. The matter of
whether or not to conduct a joint hearing of two or more petitions for bail filed by
two different accused or to conduct a hearing of said petition jointly with the trial
against another accused is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It
must be borne in mind, however, that in a petition for bail hearing, the court is to
conduct only a summary hearing, meaning such brief and speedy method of
receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent
with the purpose of the hearing which is merely to determine the weight of
evidence for purposes of bail.
o In Serapio’s case, the joint hearing of his petition for bail with the trial of the case
against former President Joseph E. Estrada will no longer be summary because as
against former President Joseph E. Estrada, the proceedings will be a full-blown
trial. With respect to Serapio, all that the prosecution needs to adduce to prove
that the evidence against him for the charge of plunder is strong are those related
to the alleged receipt or collection of money from illegal gambling as described
in sub-paragraph (a) of the amended Information. With the joinder of the hearing
of Serapio's petition for bail and the trial of the former President, the latter will
have the right to cross-examine intensively and extensively the witnesses for the
prosecution in opposition to Serapio’s petition for bail. If Serapio will adduce
evidence in support of his petition after the prosecution shall have concluded its
evidence, the former President may insist on cross-examining Serapio and his
 LAW 124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Second Semester, AY 2019–2020
ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS
witnesses. The joint hearing will therefore be prejudicial to Serapio as it will
unduly delay the determination of the issue of his right to obtain provisional
liberty and seek relief from this Court if his petition is denied by the respondent
court.
- Generally, an accused can avail of bail before being convicted of any criminal offense,
unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. When the offense
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is not a matter of right but
becomes a matter of discretion upon the trial court.
o In this case, Serapio is not entitled to bail as a matter of right at this stage of the
proceedings as there is still no bail hearing conducted. Contrary to Serapio’s
claim, the prosecution did not waive, expressly or even impliedly, its right to
adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail. The Sandiganbayan had
already scheduled the hearing dates but the same were reset due to pending
incidents raised in several motions filed by the parties, which incidents had to be
resolved by the court prior to the bail hearings. The bail hearing was again
scheduled by the Sandiganbayan but the hearing did not push through due to the
filing of this present petition.

CORTES V. CATRAL, September 10, 1997, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387

Facts: Flaviano Cortes charged Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with
Gross Ignorance of the Law because the latter allegedly reduced the bail in case of Illegal
Possession of Firearm from P180,000 as recommended by the provincial prosecutor to P30,000.
Catral also allegedly imposed a bail of P14,800 to the accused in a homicide case, which amount
was deemed too low by Cortes. The Office of the Court Administrator dismissed the complaint,
saying in part that there was no bad faith on the part of Judge Catral in reducing the amount of
bail in some of the criminal cases he handled.

Issue: WON Judge Catral was correct in reducing bail – YES.

Ruling: As long as in fixing the amount of bail, the court is guided by the purpose for which bail
is required, that is, to secure the appearance of the accused to answer charges brought against
him, the decision of the court to grant bail in the sum it deems appropriate will not be interfered
with.

The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, saying that there was
no bad faith on the part of Judge Catral in reducing the amount of bail in some of the criminal
cases he handled. In case of Illegal Possession of Firearm, Judge Catral took into consideration
the fact that there was no corpus of the crime as no firearm was taken from the possession of the
accused, as well as the fact that counsel for the accused vouched and guaranteed the appearance
of the accused in court whenever required. In the homicide case, the amount of bail was
grounded on the recommendation by the prosecutor and not Judge Catral himself.

Overall, since Judge Catral was guided by Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94, there was
no irregularity in the imposition and reduction of the amount of bail.
 LAW 124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Second Semester, AY 2019–2020
ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS

YAP, JR. V. CA, June 6, 2001, G.R. No. 141529

Facts: Francisco Yap, Jr. aka Edwin Yap was convicted of estafa for misappropriating amounts
equivalent to P5,500,500. He appealed the RTC decision and moved to be allowed provisional
liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings, but was denied. When he
filed before the Court of Appeals a Motion to Fix Bail For the Provisional Liberty of Accused-
Appellant Pending Appeal, he was allowed to post bail in the amount of P5,500,500. Yap
assailed this, saying that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in basing the bail on Yap's
civil liability, in imposing the other conditions for the grant of bail, and in setting the bail in a
prohibitory and excessive amount.

Issues:
1. WON the CA correctly set the bail at an amount equivalent to the amount of Yap Jr.’s civil
liability – NO.
2. WON the bail should instead be set at P40,000.00 based on the 1996 Bail Bond Guide –
NO.
3. WON the hold departure order violated Yap Jr.’s right to travel and liberty of abode – NO.

Ruling:
- To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of which the convicted is charged
is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability
that accused is charged of. This cannot be allowed because bail is not intended as a
punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the
judgment of the appellate court.
o The CA reasoned that it pegged the amount of bail at P5,500,000.00 because of a
perceived high risk of flight. However, the said amount is deemed to be
excessive. The Constitution itself prohibits the imposition of excessive bail, in
view of the fact that it renders meaningless the right to bail. The amount should
be just enough to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial or whenever the
court requires.
o Additionally, the courts have a wide discretion in determining the amount of bail.
Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure advises courts to
consider the following factors in the setting of the amount of bail:

(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
 LAW 124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Second Semester, AY 2019–2020
ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS
- Bail bond guide Although it merits attention, the 1996 Bail Bond Guide being invoked by
Yap Jr. is not binding upon the courts. The courts may impose a higher amount of bail
where it perceives that an appropriate increase is dictated by the circumstances.
- The hold departure order did not violate Yap Jr.’s right to travel and liberty of abode.
Such order was found by the CA to be necessary because Yap Jr. left the country several
times while his case was pending. To ensure the risk of flight, the CA then imposed a
combination of the hold-departure order and the requirement that Yap Jr. inform the court
of any change of residence and of his whereabouts.
o Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that the liberty of abode and
of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may
be provided by law.
o Such right, however, is not absolute. From the provision itself, it is stated that
upon lawful order of the court and in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be provided by law, the right to travel and liberty
of abode may be limited. In Yap’s case, the order of the CA releasing him on bail
constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above provision.
Additionally, he is not prevented from changing abode; he is merely required to
inform the court in case he does so.