David v.

Agbay
David became a Canadian citizen and bought a lot in the Philippines while being Canadian.
Agbay filed for falsification of documents on David for wrongful information on his MLA. David
sought for affirmative relief from MTC after arrest but was denied by the MTC because they
stated that they don’t have custody over him, hence, no jurisdiction over his person. However,
if he sought for affirmative relief then he waived to the custody of the court, hence, David can
seek for bail if he wanted. SC stated that custody is only a requisite for application of bail.
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.

Leviste v. CA
Jose Leviste was convicted for homicide by the RTC. Jose filed for the application of
admission for bail to CA due to his advanced age and health condition. CA denied his
application for bail because bail is discretionary (court ang mag decide if mag grant ng bail)
and his crime is punishable exceeding 6 years.

Lavides v. CA
Manolet Lavides was arrested and prosecuted for child abuse. He filed for bail and was
granted by the respondent judge but with condition that the approval of the bail bond
would be after his arraignment. He filed for certiorari. CA did rule on the issue of approving
the bail bond after arraignment. Manolet filed a petition to the SC and the SC stated that
approving the bail bond after arraignment is a violation to the constitutional rights of Manolet
Lavides.

Almeda v. Villaluz
Leonardo Almeda was charged with qualified theft of a motor vehicle. The respondent judge
required a strictly cash bond of 15,000 and denied Almeda's request to post a surety
bond. The respondent city fiscal also moved to amend the information to include allegations
of habitual delinquency and recidivism. The trial court granted the motion and allowed the
amendment. Almeda filed a special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction,
questioning the authority of the judge to require a cash bond and the validity of the
amendment.
Doctrine:
Bail is the security required for the release of a person in custody, ensuring their appearance
in court. The right to bail is guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of capital offenses
where the evidence of guilt is strong. Excessive bail is not allowed. The court has the power to
increase the amount of bail and impose conditions to ensure the accused's appearance. The
amendment of an information after a plea is allowed as long as it does not alter the
prosecution's theory of the case or prejudice the defense.

Yap v. CA
Francisco Yap was convicted for estafa. He filed a motion to fix bail pending appeal. The CA
granted the motion and allowed Yap to post bail in the amount of P5.5 Million on condition
that he will secure “a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that
he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be so until final judgment is rendered or
in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court and private
complainant.” He sought the reduction of the bail but it was denied. Hence, he appealed to the
SC. He contended that the CA, by setting bail at a prohibitory amount, effectively denied him
his right to bail. The setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive,
and constitutes an effective denial of petitioner’s right to bail. The purpose for bail is to
guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the
court.

Republic Act (RA) No. 10389 or the Recognizance Act of 2012. Recognizance—or the act
of releasing individuals in custody who cannot afford to pay bail or other fees—is a crucial
element of justice and human rights as it promotes the right to presumption of innocence,
equitability, and fairness for all. By reducing bail bonds of the most marginalized PDLs, we
also reduce the disparities in the criminal justice system. This also thwarts the impact of
incarceration on their livelihood, relationships, and other rights.

A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC. Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the
Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial.

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson of the Sub-committee on the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases submitting for this Court’s consideration and approval the
proposed Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the
same.