Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bail

    Uploaded by

    Julie Jonson
    17 views19 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views19 pages

    Bail

    Uploaded by

    Julie Jonson

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    Chapter VI BAIL (Rule 114) Meaning, nature and purpose of bail (Bar 1998) 1. Under the Rules of Court, bail is the security given for the release ofa person in custody ofthe law, furnished fy him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before court as required under certain specified conditions (See) Rule 114, Rules of Court). : 2. Bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial (Enrie v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division], G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015). The pertinent provision of the Rules of Court clearly specifies that the purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of a person before any court when so required (See. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court). In fact, the appearance of the accused before the proper court, whenever required by the court or by the Rules, is also one of the conditions in all kinds of bail (Sec. 2/6], Rule 114, Rules of Cour) 3. Since bail is the security for the release of person under custody of the law (Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court, it is evident that it is not intended to cover the civil liability of the accused in the same criminal case. The money deposited as bail may, however, be applied to the payment of fines and costs while the excess if any, shall be returned tothe accuse or to whoover made the deposit (Sec. 14, Rule 114, Rules Court). 4. ‘The question of granting 1g bail to the accused is but ‘an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him ‘or her from 306 cupren = me , of ctadng punishment inthe event af convicion The grant sion an pat o he oy of tod that depends on contin by el agment (ir acgorah Mare Palma Burg Courtof peat 612 SCRA 19) constitutional basis of the right to bail 1. The right to bail is a constitutional right. Emphatically, the Philippine Constitution provides: “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” (Sec. 13, Art. IIL, 1987 Constitution ofthe Philippines) 2, The right to bail springs from the presumption of innocence accorded every accused upon whom should not be inflicted incarceration at the outset since, after the trial, he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt (Paderanga v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 741, 753). This presumption of innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail, and further binds the court to wait until after trial to impose any punishment on the accused (Enrile v. Sandiganbayan [Third Division], G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015) 3. ‘The Constitution lays down the following fundamen- tal tenets on bail: (a) All persons charged, before their conviction for criminal offense, shall be entitled to bail. This is the general rule, (b) The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not impair the right to bail (©) Bree 4. The Conatit ‘reiterated in the Rul ve bail is not tobe required tutional proviso les of Court. "No person cha fense punishable by ‘ment, Shall be ‘trong, regardless Won" 7. Rate 6 on on balls aubstantiatly ‘ofthe stage the criminal prose 114, Rute of Cour wnt TBD the ons father the rule, theretie that «pe eg ee ‘Wietion, be accorded the right to bail, Ga py eeieng tution and the Rules of Court. re, that unless hes charged with fan offense punishable hy relution yet mament, and the evidence of his gue fe 8 capital offense, or Detua oF life impriso strong. of gull is strong, (Bar 2002, 2012) The rule applies tare ie OF even coup Wetat eases since hath tre pom, thable by reclusion perpetua. No distinetion i made we ae Political complexion of or the moral turpitude involved inte ‘rime charged (Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, 856 SCRA 17,180, ‘The testis not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. Ae such, the court is ‘inisterially bound to decide which circumstances and factors are present which would show evident of guilt or presumption ‘of guilt (People v. Cabral, 33 SCRA 361, 372), a a2 Pet ee 2 2, SS ae rere a ne Sages eee re ra tierce ee ta sirer toga rd ita pe da att a ie fused had been sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the proper SEtion of «jude i to cancel the bail instead of increasing it irccoss Mouser, 610 Sone tee er Ea me te oe ee me Sin A ita yan analy Ft hide Of eae es Sadietanen Ct ars in hc et 820) Ta Sia enor tr eee ees sec UE Sa mi Balin the military ‘The right to bail has traditio nally not been recognized 8 an exception to the Rights. The right to a in the military where and isnot available in the military {neral rule embodied in the Bil of fpeedy thal is given more emphasis stant Kral terscan compan they aes members of the military are not. But they cannot = Ke tendcrininatd agin he no ane Cah hat wend cones Ceeemalem Mite So SE 8, Ss. Balin extradition proceedings In Governme Parganan, 289 S consistent with sie o Cour oh * with See. of Rule 114 ofthe Ruler of Com ake Provides when bail isa matter of right: (ar 2004) to ther hand toner ais ta vison inthe Philppine Cutten sung ene nll to person who the ule fe oe ‘and arrest warrant. a ey The Court agreed wi titonar an ana Court agreed with the petitioner and advanced he (a) The use of the word “conviction,” inthe cone ‘sttutional provision on bail in Se. 19 of Art. Ile the Constitution, a8 well as Sec. 4 of Rule 114 ofthe Riles ‘of Court, suggests that bail applies ony when a person ‘hasbeen arrested and detained fr violation of Philippine ‘criminal ls, It does not apply to extradition pred ings because extradition courts do not render jadgments of conviction oF sequal. 1) The constiationa right ol “ows fom the pronto ef nee tae ft aed to choull nt bse th bast ta Theatr be woul snd sya ar fall be proved pod reasonable dt lee ‘ied the Corte the sete poi Baten api to cs he eta, where Prsumplon otnecns eon ce (0 Extraion preceding ary mt cnn natal pata genie cee lt Scene ca rein il cli prt ste Saeed une tilt Rh at easel harman ofa or men Court, howe, id mt fil that Bal ever a oe coi es. nt, he Cor explained 1 in extradition ca 7 aaional duty # 1 othe power to P™ Mies BS road enough t0 sian _ ever, Ur discretion and tyranny, a Well te rules 10 protect and en a a - mess itees. Indeed, Further nore nt of basic fairness to extradit onthe fide the a oe gn to ue process extend 1 ‘ery oe vy tation cain 8 alia tacptan tote“ nextaon proceeding? vr eneoption to the “00 bal rl” the se teen of the United States of America court, in Government Patrenan, 389 SCRA 623, 667-668, ratiocinated: bieve and 50 arrested or ‘pplied for ‘onvincing shoving ‘ill not be fight is ‘bail may be orand tod a an exoption only upon le wing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant neneta danger to the community; and Taha thre ett gece, humanitarian and compelling red under the eustody of the law, ‘dreumstancesinluding, a @ matter of reciprocity, those cited tp the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. ‘Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis, and since itis derived essentially from general princi- ples of justice and fairness, the applicant bears the burden of roving the above twortired requirements with clarity, preci ‘ion and emphatic foreefulness, The Court realizes that extra dition is basically an executive, nota judicial, responsibility farsing trom the presidential power to conduct foreign rela tons In its barest concep, it partakes of the nature of police ‘zalatance amongst states, which is not normally a judicial ‘rerogative. Hence, any intrusion by the courts into the exer- ‘se ofthis power should he characterized by caution, so that ‘the vital international and bilateral interests of our countey (The Bar Lectures Series) will not be unreasonably impeded or compromised. In short, while the Court is ever protective of “the sporting idea of fair play,” it also recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations.” Who furnishes the bai ‘The bail may bo furnished by the bail applicant hime ‘or by bondaman (Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Gourd, Obligation and right of the bondsman; arrest without a 1. The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the ‘purt for execution ofthe final judgment (Seo fa Rule 114), For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsman, may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed ona ‘certified copy ofthe undertaking, cause him tbe arrested by a Police oficer or any other person of stable age and diseretion (Sec. 28, Rule 114, Rules of Cour 2. An accused released on bail may be re-arested without the necessity of @ warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without permission ofthe court where ‘the case is pending (See. 23, Rule 114, Rules of Court 8, The authority of the bondsman to arrest or eause the arrest ofthe aecused springs from the old principle that once the obligation of bai it assumed, Uhe bondsman o aurety bbecomes the jailer of the accused and is subrogated to al the rights and means which the government possesses to make bis control over him effective (U.S. t- Addison and Gomes, 27 Phil. 862, 569-570; People v. Gonzales, 105 Phil 8,50) ‘Applicant for ball must be in custody 1, fail is the security for the release of person un- der custody, ail cannot be availed af by sameane outside the tasty of the law. A free man, therefore, isnot ented bail. A fugitive may not apply for bail unless he gives himse up frst so he may be placed under the custody of the law. 2 Anti intended to tain o seat on pov sont sty same cana pst be estoy nr Huy ea urine i artarycurender, Iwo be ener {alas goo wl tee Padang. Court of Areas 247 SCRA 741, 749). (Ba 2012) Th ie would alo be equal- {y incongruous, to file petition fe il for someone whose freedom has yet tobe curtailed (Docena- Cope Ba 900 ‘The rationale behind thie ral the practice where the accused could pet onder to post his bal, without recognizing the jurndition of the court by his personal appearance (Manda Tuas 166 SCRA 377,390), lento discourage and prevent 8, Custody of the law is required before the court an at on an application for hal, but is not regained fore adjudication of ather relies sought by the defendant "the ‘mere application for bal constitute a waiver ofthe defense ot lack of jurisdiction ver the person ofthe nccused Moneta Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377,288; David v. Agbay, GR. No, 99119, March 18, 2015). Bar 2014) Under the Miranda ruling, therefore, while tho mere application for bail constitutes submission tothe retin, sf the court, the grant of bail requires not mene juredicton ‘over the person of the applicant but ‘custody’ over‘ perce 4 _Beingin the custody of th law signifies restraint on the person, ii tery eustady oer tela ot Ue eee Wincades but isnot limited to detention (Dante a, GR.No, 199113, March 18,2015, Homever a mcosc ‘sconfined in hospital, maybe deomel whe athena thelaw fhe cat communiate in abn sheet le confined ina hospital (Defensor Santogs Vaso 217 SCRA 633), ™ “ age In Defensor Santiago v. Vasques, 217 SCRA 633, the Patter who was charged before the Sandiganbayan for Violation of the Anti-Graft-and Corrupt Practices Act, fled {rough counsel what purported to be an “Urgent Ex parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond.” Sai potitioner was, ‘tthe time, confined in a hospital recuperating from serious physical injuries which she sustained in a major vehicular Imishap, Consequently, she expressly otght leave “that he bb considered as having placed hers under the jurisdiction ‘of the Sandiganbayan for purposes of tho required tial and ‘ther proceedings.” On the basi of said ex parte motion and the peculiar circumstances staining Jn that incident, the Sandiganlayan authorized petitioner to post.» cash bal bond for her provisional Ibert without ned of her personal ‘Ppearance in view of her physical incapacity and ak matter ‘ofhumane consideration. (Bar 2012) ‘Bal to guarantee appearance of witnesses (Bar 1994, 1999) 1. Ball doesnot only apply’ to person who has trans sessed the la or ls perecived to have done so. Te may Ike- ‘vise apply to.a material witness. Alco, while the rule is that bail doesnot aply toa person who is notin eustody of the Law, bail to secure the appearance of a material witness docs not ‘quire prior custody of the lav. The witness may be ordered 1 post bail even she i not under detention. Te is only when Ihe ress to post bail shall he be committed to prison Se. 14, Rule 119, Rates of Court When the court is satisfied, upon proof or oath, that @ ‘material witness will not testify when required, it may, upon ‘motion of either party, order the witness to post bal in such ‘sum as may be deemed proper.” he refuses to post bai, the Court shall cominit him to prison uni he complies ori legally discharged after his testimony has been taken (Se, 14, Rule 119, Rules of Courd 2 Bail may also be requirod of witnesses when there is substitution of eriminal information. “If t appears at fany time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the friginal complaint oF information upon the fling of @ new fone charging the proper offense as long as the accused is not placed in double eopardy. The court may require the witnesses towive bail for their appearance atthe trial (Sec. 14, Rue 110, Rates of Court italics supplied) ‘pai for those not yet charged 1, What entitles a person to bal is his being under the castor of the law. Hence, “any person in eustody who i not ‘charged in court may apply for bal with any court im Ube ce city, or municipality where he is held” (See. 17, Rate 114, Rules of Court) ‘A person deprived of his lherty by virtue of his arrest ot soluntary surrender may apply for bail az soon as he ts do rived of his liberty, even before a complaint or information i= Fed against him. He need not wait for his arraignment before fling a petition for bal Serapiov. Sandigandayan, 296 SCRA 145, 471. He need not even wait fora formal complaint or in- formation tobe filed (Rute w.Beldia, Jr, 451 SCRA 402, 408) 2, ‘The application for bail shall be made with any court {nthe province, city or municipality where the person arrested is beld In Ruiz, Beldia, Jr, 451 SCRA 402, he person arrested seas detained in Camp Cramo, Quezon City, pending the ling OF formal charges in cour Upon inquest: the areatee cuted a waiver of the provsims of Art 125 of the Revised Penal Godein relation wo Sex. 7, le 112 ofthe then applicable 1885 Rule of Criminal Proadure: The tne Pronto thus, set the hearing of the. preliminaty, investigation, However, a day before the preliminary investigation, the reste obtained an Order ofRelease siguedby therespotdent {dg who was then detailed as asistng judge of Branch 27, Regional rial Cour of Marikina City, The Certicte of Detention issued hy the PNP-T SOD showed thatthe arene was detained st Camp Cras 58 Quezon ity. "The Court ruled thats os core pound gat y the Ofte ofthe Court Administrator. the appheen Sb should have ben fed ttre te proper igen Cee Sour and mot in Marikina Cy. Effects of failure to appear atthe trial 1. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice shall be deemed: Seaiver of his ight tobe present and thet a sont and the trial may pr tbsentia (Sec. 2c}, Rule 114, Rules of Court), tits.) ese rt, Pomdsman may arrest the accused for the snd diction upon writen se copy ofthe undertaking See vides involved an accused charge ed with violation ft EA ro tae Seem wine Ge Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The accused therein SEITE re geen of ei te It was held in Lavides that the grant of bail shoul be conditioned upon the prior arraignment of the accused. cases where bail is authorized, bail should be granted befo arraignment; otherwise, the accused will be precluded from filing a motion toquash which is tobe done before arraignment. If the information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would be no need for the arraignment of the accused. (Bar 2015) ‘The Court explained that to condition the grant of bail 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, ing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios undermine the accused's constitutional right not to be put on trial except id complaint or information sufficient to charge him fand his right to bail (Lavides v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 321, 330). ‘may be given in the following forms: corporate surety property bond, ceash deposit, or recognizance (Sec. I 2 — This is bail furnished by corporation. Under the Rules of Court, any domestic or foreign corporation, which is licensed as a surety and authorized to ‘act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by the board of directors (See. 10, Rule 114, Rules of Court). 3. Property bond — A property bond is an undertaking n on the real property given as security for ‘ten (10) days from the approval ‘of the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation on the certificate of title on file with the Registry of Deeds. If the land is unregistered, it is annotated in the Registration the Register of Deo provinceor city where the land lies. The registration is likewise ‘made on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned. Within ten shall be sufficient eause for the cancellation of the property bond, his re-arrest and detention (See. 11, Rule 114, Rules of Court, 4. Cash deposit — Bail may also be in the form of a cash Aeposit. The accused o any person acting in his behalf may depo: where the case is pending, the amount of bail fixed by the ‘court or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the ease. The accused ‘upon submission of the ce be discharged from custody te of deposit and a written —-.__— are ia ct plea « ‘350; ifony, hal be returned tothe acu te nde the deposit ‘Sec, 14, Rule 114, Rules of Court," {2 oF provincia ity or munepa the pertoosenuera lector internal reve ‘ecenefl in ea Aju in toe hoe sere sv deposit cath fai or shold mich es in the judge office, muh leas in hi own rete ‘Mauricio, 414 SCRA 11, 17; Aqulan v. Fernandes 190 Got 16216810; Lachicav.Tormts 170'SCHA S00 Sion ot 8. Recgnisance — Thi {ter into bear some court or magistrate duly ath {0 take it, withthe condom todo me paver ac the ‘ost usual condition in eriinal ac being the apperanes of the accused for trial. nated 'A person in custody may be released on recognizance ‘whenever allowed by law or bythe Rules of Court. The release may be either on the recognizance of the accused himself that of responsible person (Se. 15, Rule 114, ules of Court Release on recognizance may be ordered by the court in the following cases (a) When the offense changed is for velaton of an ordinance, «light felony, oF a criminal offense the impos fable penalty of which does not exceed sx (6) months n= prisonment andlor P2,000 fine, under the ercumstances provided in RA. 6036; () Where a person has been in custody or a pe riod equal t of more than the minimum ofthe impossble principal penalty, without application of the Indetermi- Pie Sentence Lav or any modifying circumstance in ‘Which case, the court may’ allow his release ot is own ‘Retenizance, or ona reduced baila the diseretion of Court (See 16, Rule 114, Rules of Courts mato ees ere the arsed hax applied fr ation in ity of the judgment, but no bail was sending Sally eo ing one (PD. 968, See: 7 ee ade 114, Res of Cour aeetpcase a yout ender eld fr PRISED, ea a ethan tal or appeal he wneine ‘anf mish bail and wader the eireumstances en) Ser {ofan eed (Bort. doellancs, 280 SCRA (579, 587588); and fo). In summary procedure, when the accused Bas toon re rte appear when eg rea hall bet ub to cour (Sc, 16, 1891 ac ats on Suma eo, Not: Tn tis 8 Rotunda on Summary Proce me, ae Rafts accused cannot be effected on bis recognizance. held for physical Guidelines in xing the amount of bal (Bar 1999) be ul in xing the amount of bal that cxive Wa al ot be requ See. 1, Art HL Bl of a tay Contatonof the Philipines; Sec. 9, Rae 114, flr Cont tn cng tal the amount should be high enough to as sure the pesnc of te aruned whom nich presence is re {etre ut mo higher than i reasonably ealetted to ull {Ris purpose, Ancther principle to consider isthe god ofthe publc us walls tho Fgh ofthe nceoned. The tnabity of {he acused to secure fl in certain amount ia not solely {Dtaconadered and hf dest by te make bal ex- conve, When an accused has no means to bail Kimaelf out fy amount fed, no matter how small would fal into the Category of excessive ba. At the bottom, the principal factor ede oli ofthe pena te ad or ot his igh to avd pniahonent (Villsenor Albano, SCRA 312, 316-317). * Morea 2. ‘Tho judge who issued the warrant or who granted ‘tho application for bail shall fix reasonable amour of bal ‘considering primarily, but not Uived to, the following factor (2) Financial ability ofthe accused to ive ball (©) Nature and circumstances ofthe offense; (6) Penalty forthe offense charged (@) Character and reputation ofthe accused: (©) Age and health ofthe accused (0) Weight ofthe evidence against the acused (2) Probability of the accused appearing at the ‘iat; (h). Forfeiture of other bal: (‘The fact that the accused was a give from Justice when arrested: and 1) Pendency ofother eases where the accused ison bil (Se. 9, Rule 174, Rules of Cour; See. A.M. No.12- 11-2 SC, Guidelines for Decongestng Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and o Speedy rial, Eyfective May 1, 2014). 3. IF the accused does not have the Snancial ability to post the amount of bail that the court initially fixed, be tay move for ts reduction, submitting for that purpose such ocuments or aifidavits as may warrant tho reduction he fseoks. The hearing of this motion shall enjoy priority in the hearing of cases (See. 3, A.M. No, 12-11-2 SC, Guidelines for Decongesting Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail ond to Speedy Trial, Effective May 1, 2014) 4, Theorder fixing the amount of bal is not appealable (See. 4, AM. No. 12-11-2 SC, Guidelines for Decongesting ails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial, Effective May 1, 2014) Duration ofthe bait 1, ‘The undertaking under the bail shall be effective gon approval, and unlee canceled shal emai a ee at ‘'fStager of the case unt promulgation of judgment of the Trial Court, respective of whether te case was Retaly fled in or appealed toi (Se. 2a, Rate 114, Rules Peour 2, The bail bond posted by the accused can only be used during the 16-day period to appeal and not during the (tire period of appeal. This i consistent with Sec. 2a) of| ule 114 which provides that the ball “sall be elfetive upon pproval and remain in force a all stages ofthe ease, un omer canceled, until the promulgation ofthe judgment of the Regional Trial Court. xx +" Ths rule iva departure from the old rules which provided that the bail shal be effective fand remain in foree at all stages of the case fetermination, and, thus, effective even during tf appeal. For the accused to continue his provisional liberty fn the same bal bond, consent of the bondsman is necessary (Maguddatu v. Court of Appeats, 326 SCRA 162, 369.370) Release or transfer of person in custody No person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except (a) Upon order af the cour; or (©) When he is admitted to bail (See. 9, Rule 114, Rules of Cour) When bail isnot required 1. Generally, bail isnot required when the law or the Rules of Court so provide (Se. 16, Rule 114, Rules of Court). 2. When a person has been in custody for a period ‘qual to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment Breseribed for the offense charged, he shall be released ‘immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial oF the procetings on appeal. Also, ifthe maximum penalty (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE to which the accused may be sentenc be released after thirty (30) days of pr (Sec. 16, Rule 114, Rules of Court). In rot required prior to the release of the person in custody. 3. In cases filed with the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Cireuit Trial Court for an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2) months, and ) day, and the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest (Sec. 8(b), Rule 112, Rules of Court). Since no arrest is made, bail is not required. ject to certain exceptions, under Sec. 1 of R.A. ‘bail shall not be required if a person is charged with a or city ordinance, a light felony and! br a criminal offense, the prescribed penalty for which is not higher than six (6) months imprisonment and/or a fine of 12,000.00 or both where it is established that he is unable to post the required cash or bail bond. When bail is not allowed not allowed in the following cases: 1. A person charged with a capital offense, offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprison- ‘ment, shall be not admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is ‘strong regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution (See. 7, Rule 114, Rules of Court). 2. Bail shall not be allowed after a judgment of convic- tion has become final (See. 24, Rule 114, Rules of Court). Bail shall not be allowed after the accused has com- 124, Rule 114, Rules of Court). 3. ‘menced to serve sentence (Sec. When bail is a matter of right (Bar 1999, 2006, 2008) 1. The general rule is that all persons in eustody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, As a result, all erimi- nal eases within the competence of the Metropolitan Trial 35 Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial : ay Gaur, Municipal Til Court in Citi, right courts have no juris punishable by death, relusion perpeiua or ie imprisonment, Likewise, bail is a matter of right prior to conviction by the Fogional Trial Court for any offense nat penatohe by seat reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Enrile v. Sandigan- bayan [Third Division), G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015). (©) after conviction by the courts men Jeter “ay and ie a ae (©) before conviction by the Regional Trial 3 Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death recusion perpetio, or life imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114, Rules of . 2. Examples: (a) A person accused of ho ented alate of ight ere icon ince the penalty forthe offense under Art. 249 ofthe Revised Penal Code is rectusion temporal. It he on when evidence of guilt is strong. Said offenses are punish by reclusion perpetua. punishable Remedy when bail is denied (Bar 1991) 1. The remedy of the petitioner from the order of the {val court denying an application fo bil sto ile a pation r certiorari if the trial court committed a grave abuse of its cretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issu- ing the said order (People v. Gomez, 325 SCRA 61, 69). Certio- rari is the remedy to annul the order of the court denying the Petition for bail. Mandamus may, at the same time, be availed ofto compel the grant of bail which is a matter of right. When ‘nail ea matter orig, the court ile with no discretion to grant the same. ms 2. When bil x « mater of right, the same can dene hpi ht the endl eo ‘appear in the trial isnot aground for denial of the ri EIST however, reason forthe cur fo inerene the ba bond to aanue his appearance. Thus, it was ruled that whey ball is'a matierof right, the existence of 9 high degree of probability thatthe defendant wil abscond confers upon te ‘ourt no greater discretion than to increase the bond fo such fn amount as would reasonably tend to assure the presence et the defendant when itis wanted, ch amount tobe subject, of course, to the provision that excessive bail shall not be Fequired ‘San Miguel v. Maceda, 820 SCRA 205,215) When bail ia mattor of disretion (Bar 1995, 2006, 2008, 2014) f cee 1. In Sec. 4) of Rulo 114, eal tha bai is a matter of rig before conection hy the gional Trial Couto a sftenae not punishable by death, rlusion perpetuate imprisonment But when the aecased has been convicted in the gional vial Courtefanoffenae not punishable hy death, reclusionperpetua or ifs imprisonment, the amision to all ‘comes dictionary (Seb Rate 114 Rate of Court Since the grant of bails «matter o iseeton, hearing rust be conducted whether or not the rosea refuses {D present evidence and the prosecutor must be noted to require hmm to submit his recommendation. This natie of Tearing aplies i all ase wheter bale mata of ight ora matic fdisretion(Zunoo Cabebe, 444 SCRA 382, 387 1358 cing Cortes, Ctra 270 SCRA T; Pr further readings, ee Gu Pept, 682 SCRA 94, September 26201 2. Ifthe grant of bail comes disertonary when the accused has Been convicted the Regional Trial Court Stam iflens net pusishable by death, recason peretu ot i pisonment Se, le 14, Rules of Cour flows eee sehe penalty imposed death, reclusion perptua or ie pat shouldbe nel eee thi mean hat came taint tee Se on oven bere rena naa iment oop, a, 20 SCRA2S ‘ron thar ted at fared wea se Cnt eat incense to evidence of ul i ON Tle Nich ary ear anprisonments the evi sy x x The dent implntin therefore, ig that if an auc wo to charge with a eine punishable rts ea i caved by the tal court ond rele Pe Par such pale either amar sentenced apr ofthe eased oro neon othe ot esac tntn, tour woud at Ba a ped that he evidnen gull 0D have ay ae Thave bern suet to dy bul eve, ncn woul are win red a he belo has ben prover beyond resonable dol Sea ea pn be astd to the aces ding the ‘Bal cy ois appeal rom the derent of convicson” yen_an accused i 4. Te is a misconception that wh pats with the cme of murder, he is not etited to bail at cae vi oe of murder is no-balable, The grant of aaa sd charged with an lense that caries witht a oe clusion peretu i icretionary on the Pi to ena our Th ler word, the accused till entitled Shit bt no Tonge asa mater of ght Sal or aja determination tnt the evidence may rng order grant bal The prosecution of il i nt opptanity to present evidence Because, BY Ter Altre of deciding applications fr bal i son the ier Pa idence that ji discretion is weighed in sae ether Un gl ofthe accused strong (San Sigua Movado, 20 SCRA 25, 214216) ‘The disrtion of tho court may be exercised only after the Snarngealed to ascertain the degre of git of the eS he purpose of whether ornate shouldbe granted Scryer teeta, Emicisorieaceceneonrs No. 219847, August 18, 2015). meta here appton fo bal soe fed ater con ‘the Regional Trial Court (Bar 2002) oe 1. The appcaton fr all mayb dan acted hy the trial eourt even if nati af appeal has lve toey Ba roe a te och etn rial rec tothe apts (Ses a ey { Gourd. Corry, the nina vcard aw aiead an trom te apple artic esos sak bed with he id epi er 2. The rule allowing th ling of he apt tr bail inthe tral our prior fo the transmission ofthe orgie Ferd inn Sef al 130 The ee Senne af the seo paragraph of sd sion po that ether mele te aden a utr to anata appeal Sond pending appeal 3 If th denon othe HTC convicting he sced hanged the nature of the offense from non-balable fo tall sbie"th appa fr bal ca ny be i od ie pt ur Se ee Sa Section Gf le 120 has iar rvs tha" ioe dco til orem te edad ‘he natare of the ofa: nn tae fe te Ceplction for til con oy be fd and rene Be ptt cre ‘I he aplintin for bi in rat he acted may $e alowed conta on papal ana {he pndeney fhe ppl unr the san Bel Th ale oe id i coe ots (Oe SANE tts of Core The snot ofthe onde quired to have provisional Uberty under the same ‘of the rule in Sec. 2a) of Rule 114, that the Chall be effective x x x until promulgation of ne Regional Teal Court xxx." al be 1 BE ecause peetaking Jdement of men appiction for bal after conviction bythe RTC shal be denied If the penalty imposed is death, elusion perpetucr wil imptitent, bil hou be denied since the conic: oi epter strong evidence of guilt based on proof beyond i ae doubt (People. Nicha, 240 SCRA 253, 205) ‘2 Even ifthe penalty imposed bythe trial court i not any of the above but merely imprisonment exceeding six (6) Je the accused shall be dented bal, oF his buil already Metre shall be cancelled, if the prosecution shows th fdlowing or other similar ircumstances: (@)_ That the accused isa reidivist ora quasi-recid- vista habitual delinquent or has committed the crime fgrovated by the circumstance of reiteration; () ‘That the accused has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the condi tons of his bail without valid justification; (©) ‘That the accused committed the offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon; (@)_ ‘That the circumstances of his ease indicate the probability of igh ireleased on bail or (©) ‘That there is undue risk that he may commit “another crime during the pendency ofthe appeal (See. Rule 114, Rules of Cour ‘The court isnot authorized to deny or cancel the bail ex parte. The rule requires “tice tothe accused” (Sec. 5, Rule 114, Rules of Court), The resolution of the Regional’ Trial ours denying or cancelling the ail may be reviewed by the ‘ppellate court motu proprio or on motion of any party alter notice to the adverse party in ether case (See. 5, Rule 114, Rules of Court Bail pending appeal where penalty imposed exceeds six years 1. Iman application for bail pending appeal by an ap- Pella sentenced by the tral court toa penalty af imprisey: ‘ment for more than six years the discretionary nature ofthe rant offal pending appeal does not mean that bail choad ‘utomatically be granted absent any of the ‘mentioned in the third paragraph of See. 5, Rule 114 af the Rules of Court (Leviste v. Court of Appeals, 615 SCRA 619, 638. 2. The third paragraph of Se. 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where the penalty impoced on the appellant applving for bail is imprisonment eneveding six (Br seant The first scenario deals with circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph not being present. The second scenario contemplates the existence of at least one of the said circumstances. In the frst situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial disreton. This means that if none of the ‘Grcumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Se. 9, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the diseretion to {grantor deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may ‘be denied even ifthe bal negating circumstances in the third Paragraph of Sec. 5, Rule 114 are absent. On the other hand, In the second situation, the appellate court exercises mare Sringent discretion, that is, to carefully ascertain Whether any of the enumerated circumstances infact exists, If it s0 determines, it has no other option except to deny or revoke ball pending appesl. Thus, a finding that none of the said ‘ircumstances is precent will not automatically result in the ‘grant of bail Such finding wil simply authorize the court to tse the less stringent sound discretion approach (Levit Court of Appeals, 615 SCR 619, 635.639). Where none ofthe

    You might also like