Sec. 12.

Custodial Investigation
Any person under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
• (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
• (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
• (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families.
Sec. 12 – 22 pertains to rights of people
suspected, accused or convicted of crimes
They may be classified as:
1. Pre-trial rights
2. Trial rights
3. Post trial rights
• Rights guaranteed by Sec. 12

• 1. Right to remain silent

• 2. Right to counsel
• 3. Right to be informed of such rights
2011 Bar Exam:
• 20. After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his
right to silence and to counsel,
• he told the investigators that he was waiving his
right to have his own counsel or to be provided
one. He made his waiver in the presence of a
retired Judge who was assigned to assist and
explain to him the consequences of such waiver. Is
the waiver valid?
Topics:
1. When right attaches
2. Counsel of Choice
3. Waiver
4. Exclusionary Rule
5. Presumptions
• When right to counsel attaches ?
•
• The right to counsel attaches upon the start of
an investigation, i.e . , when the investigating officer starts
to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissions from the accused. At such point or state, the
persons being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to
avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced
admissions or confessions from the lips of the person
undergoing interrogations for the commission of an
offense. ( PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO )
• 1. If the police obtains confession without counsel orally,
and later reduces it into writing with the assistance of
counsel, is the written confession admissible? [Bandula, Quidato,
Mojello]
• 2. Are voluntary admissions or res gestae statements
covered? [Dy, but Arondain] People v. Cabanada, 831 SCRA 485 (2017)
(house and police station)
• 3. Is a person placed in a police line up entitled to counsel?
[Pavillare, Hatton, People v. Lara, 678 SCRA 332 (2012)
• 4. Is an interview given to a TV or radio reporter covered
by the right to counsel? [Espejo, Taboga, Endino] People v. Dacanay, 807
SCRA 130 (2016)
• 5. When a suspect is made to sign receipts of articles taken
from him, is he entitled to counsel?[Linsagna, Li Wai ching, Gutang]
• 6. What about if he is made to sign a marked money taken
from him in a buybust operation? Pp. v. Linsing
• 7. Can pictures of a reenactment taken without counsel be
admitted in evidence? [Olvis]
• 8. In an administrative investigation, is a person entitled to
counsel? Lumiqued, Sebastian/postal, Remolina/CSC,
Ting Lan Uy/NPC, Salonga/Metrobank
• But see: RA No. 7438- Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested,
Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public
Officers. –
• (a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall
at all times be assisted by counsel.
• (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order
or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the
commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known
to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice,
who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person
cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided
with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.
• 9. Are you entitled to counsel when you are only
invited or interviewed at the Police Station? [Tan,
Sequino] [Informal
[ talk (Bravo)
• 10. Investigation by Barangay Tanod? [Malngan]
By bantay-bayan? [Lauga, 2010]
• 11. What about in a preliminary investigation?
People v. Penaflor, 766 SCRA 427 (2015), but see
People v. Bokingo, 655 SCRA 313 (2011) and
other previous cases
113. Citizen interrogated abroad? (Gomez)
114. Tactical interrogation (military term)
115. Execution of counter-affidavit (Ladiana)
116. Walking along the highway to the police station
or while aboard a police vehicle (Baraquil, Espejo
117. Investigation by private employer (People v.
Cabanada, NC Construction)
118. General inquiry into an unsolved crime (also
Cabanada)
• Summary: Custodial Investigation
• 1. Suspect must be in custody, either in
jail or deprived of your freedom in a
significant way
• 2. Under investigation, questioning
initiated by officers having custody in
relation to an offense [NC Construction,
Malngan]
• People v. Bokingo, 655 SCRA 313 (2011)
• Accused was charged with murder.
During the preliminary investigation, he
admitted killing the victim, which
admission was taken down by the
prosecutor’s stenographer. Is the admission
admissible? (But see People v. Penaflor,
766 SCRA 427 (2015)
• Jesalva v. People, 640 SCRA 253 (2011)
• After accused learned that he was a suspect in
a murder case, he went to the police station,
accompanied by his cousin who was a prosecutor.
He told the police that the victim jumped from his
vehicle. Can the admission, without the assistance
of a lawyer, be used as circumstantial evidence
that he was with the victim the night she was
stabbed?
• 2002, No. 8-Dante Galang was arrested and
investigated by the police without
counsel. In the course thereof, he admitted
ownership of the shabu taken inside his
handbag. The NBI made him sign a receipt
for the plastic bag and its shabu contents. Is
the receipt admissible? [Also 1993/4]
1997, No. 10: C and D were placed in a police line-up as
robbery suspects. The complainant was able to identify
them as the robbers.
Was their identification without the assistance of
counsel valid?[Also 1993, No. 9]

1990, No. 9. Police operatives searched the house of X for

firearms by virtue of a search warrant. May X
successfully challenge the search on the ground that the
peace officers did not inform him of his right to remain
silent and his right to counsel?
• No. 14, 1993: The S/S Masoy of Panamanian registry,
while moored at the South Harbor, was found to have
contraband goods on board. The customs Team found out
that the vessel did not have the required ship’s permit for
shipping documents. The vessel and its cargo wee held
and a warrant of seizure and Detention was issued after
due investigation. In the course of the forfeiture
proceedings, the ship captain and the ship’s resident agent
executed sworn statements before the customs legal officer
admitting that the contraband cargo were found aboard the
vessel. The shipping lines object to the admission fo the
statements contending that the two were not assisted by
counsel? Are the statements admissible?
• 2. Counsel of Choice (Olvis is modified)
• Only lawyers are qualified- Ordono: Rules on choice:
• 1. Suspect can choose his lawyer (initial choice belongs to
him)
• 2. If he cannot afford a lawyer or does not know anyone,
and the police chooses someone, and he expressly agrees
to the lawyer given to him, he is deemed counsel of choice
of the suspect. [Parojinog, Pamon]
• 3. Likewise, if police chooses someone and you agree to
be investigated without objection, counsel is deemed the
choice of accused. (Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42
(2010), except People v. Cachuela, 698 SCRA 161 (2013)
• Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
• Accused, a suspect in the killing of Col.
Abadilla, was assisted by a lawyer provided
to him by police investigators. He
confessed with the lawyer’s assistance.
Was the lawyer a counsel of choice by the
accused?
• 2005, Bo. 8: Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the
shopping mall bombings. Advised of his rights, Mariano asked
for the assistance of his relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed
that Atty. Santos was inexperienced, incompetent and inattentive.
Deeming him unsuited to protect the rights of Mariano, the NBI
dismissed Atty. Santos. Appointed in his palce was Atty.
Barroso, a bar topnothcer who was in the premises visiting a
relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted Mariano when the latter gave
a statement. However, Mariano assailed the investigation
claiming that he was deprived of counsel of his choice.
• Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing
Atty. Barroso in his stead? Is Mariano’s statement, made with the
assistance of Atty. Barroso, admissible in evidence?
• People v. Cachuela, 698 SCRA 161 (2013)
• During the custodial investigation
initiated by officers of the National Bureau
of Investigation, the investigators assigned
him a lawyer even if at that time he had
retained his own counsel. Is the confession
admissible?
• Counsel must be competent and independent, effective and
vigilant. Who are not deemed independent?
• 1. Prosecutors- [Matus Viduya, RA 7438
• 2. Those conducting preliminary investigations [7438]
• 3. City, Municipal and Provincial attorneys [Espanola, Culala]
• 4. Mayors and Barangay Captains who are lawyers
[Tomaquin/Velarde]

• 5. Policemen who are lawyers [Obero]

• 6. Those directly affected by the case (RA No. 7438)
• Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
Who has the burden of proving that accused was assisted by an
effective and vigilant counsel?
The right to counsel has been written into our Constitution in order
to prevent the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting
confessions from a suspect in a crime. The lawyer’s role cannot be
reduced to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-
prepared confession, even if it indicated compliance with the
constitutional rights of the accused. The accused is entitled to
effective, vigilant and independent counsel. Where the prosecution
failed to discharge the State’s burden of proving with clear and
convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective and
vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially admitted his guilt, the
extrajudicial confession cannot be given any probative value.
• 1996, No 3: A, who was arrested by the police in a murder
case, was not represented by counsel during the question
and answer stage. However, before he was asked to sign
his statements to the police investigator, the latter provided
A with counsel, who happened to be at the police station.
After conferring with A, the counsel told the police
investigator that A was ready to sign the statements.
• Can the statements of A be presented in court as his
confession? Explain. [Lucero and Ruos]
• 1993, No. 17: In his extrajudicial confession executed
before the police authorities, Jose Walangtakot admitted
killing his girlfriend in a fit of jealousy. This admission
was made after the following answer and question to wit:
• T: Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng serbesyo ng
isang abogado poara kmakatulong mo sa inmbestigasyong
ito at kung wala kang makuha, ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng
libreng abogado, ano ngayon and iyong masasabi?
• S: Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal kaya hindi kn na
knakailangan ang abogado?
• Is the confession admissilbe
• III. Waiver – Brief History
• 1. Prior to Jan. 17, 1973 – No right existed
• 2. From Jan. 17, 1973 – Right existed but formalities for waiver not a
requirement
• 3. From April 26, 1983 – Moncupa v. Enrile (adopted Miranda Rule)
(can only be waived in the presence of counsel –but no form)
• 4. From Feb. 2, 1987 – can only be waived in writing and in the
presence of counsel
• 5. After RA No. 7438 – After a valid waiver, the confession itself
must be signed in the presence of parent, brother, sister, municipal
judge, district school supervisor, priest, minister of the Gospel
Waiver: Requisites
• 1. Must be in writing
• 2. Must be made in the presence of counsel
• 3. After a valid waiver, confession itself must be
signed in the presence of the parent, brother,
sister, spouse, mayor, judge, supervisor or priest…
[RA 7438]
• 4. [It must be voluntary.]
• IV. Exclusionary Rule – Confessions which are
covered-
• 1. Uncounselled confession
• 2. Obtained through force torture, violence and
other means that vitiates the will (abrogated
People v. Samonte (1957)
• 3. Oral confession [7438]
• 4. Those obtained after a valid waiver but not
signed in the presence of brother, sister, parent,
spouse or etc..
Meaning of “means that vitiates the will”:
1. Obtained through hypnosis and drugs
2. Obtained after promises of release or
better treatment (Eglipa)
• Scope of inadmissibility-
• 1. Against confessant
• 2. Against third persons
• 3. Applies to objects taken (People v. Alicando,
Nov. 13, 1996, 3rd division, but see People v.
Malimit, 264 SCRA 167, Nov. 14, 1996 (2nd
Division)
• 4. For any purpose in any proceedings (RA No.
7438)
See People v. Bombesa, 162 SCRA 402 (1988)and
People v. Balesteros, 237 SCRA 499 (1995) One
accused signed a confession without counsel
implicating another (“inadmissible as against him”
–right is personal, can be raised only by one
whose right has been invaded! ((3) Any confession
or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
V. Rule on Presumptions
Three kinds:
1. That the Miranda Warning was given
2. That accused enjoyed the right to
effective and vigilant counsel
3. That the confession was voluntarily
given
What is the value of presumptions
To summarize:
For the extra-judicial confession to be
admissible, (1) the Prosecution must prove that
accused was warned of his Miranda rights, (2) that
he enjoyed the assistance of an effective and
vigilant counsel. In case of waiver, the
Prosecution must prove that the waiver was (1) in
writing, (2) done with the assistance of counsel
and that (3) it was voluntarily made. To challenge
the confession, accused has the burden that it was
involuntarily made.
• No. 9, 2001: Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of
murder before the RTC of Manila. Accused Joseph turned
state witness against his co-accused Rafael and Carlos, and
was accordingly discharged from the Information. Among
the evidence presented by the prosecution was an
extrajudicial confession made by Joseph during the
custodial investigation, implicating Rafael and Carlos who,
he said, together with him committed the crime. The
extrajudicial confession was executed without the
assistance of counsel.
• Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the
ground that said extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in
evidence against them.
• 2012, III. Mr. Brown, a cigarette vendor, was invited by PO1 White
to a nearby police station. Upon arriving at the police station,
Brown was asked to stand side-by-side with five (5) other cigarette
vendors in a police line-up. PO1 White informed them that they
were looking for a certain cigarette vendor who snatched the purse
of a passer-by and the line-up was to allow the victim to point at the
vendor who snatched her purse. No questions were to be asked from
the vendors.
• Brown, afraid of a "set up" against him, demanded that he be
allowed to secure his lawyer and for him to be present during the
police line-up. Is Brown entitled to counsel? Explain (5%)
• Would the answer in (a.) be the same if Brown was specifically
invited by White because an eyewitness to the crime identified him
as the perpetrator? Explain. (3%)
• Briefly enumerate the so-called "Miranda Rights". (2%)
2013, III. A robbery with homicide had taken place and Lito, Badong and Rollie
were invited for questioning based on the information furnished by a neighbor
that he saw them come out of the victim's house at about the time of the
robbery/killing. The police confronted the three with this and other
information they had gathered, and pointedly accused them of committing the
crime.
Lito initially resisted, but eventually broke down and admitted his
participation in the crime. Elated by this break and desirous of securing a
written confession soonest, the police called City Attorney Juan Buan to serve
as the trio's counsel and to advise them about their rights during the
investigation.
Badong and Rollie, weakened in spirit by Lito's early admission, likewise
admitted their participation. The trio thus signed a joint extra-judicial
confession which served as the main evidence against them at their trial. They
were convicted based on their confession.
Should the judgment of conviction be affirmed or reversed on appeal?
(5%)
2013, No. 7.
As he was entering a bar, Arnold - who was holding an unlit cigarette in his right hand -
was handed a match box by someone standing near the doorway. Arnold unthinkingly
opened the matchbox to light his cigarette and as he did so, a sprinkle of dried leaves fell
out, which the guard noticed. The guard immediately frisked Arnold, grabbed the
matchbox, and sniffed its contents. After confirming that the matchbox contained
marijuana, he immediately arrested Arnold and called in the police.
At the police station, the guard narrated to the police that he personally caught Arnold in
possession of dried marijuana leaves. Arnold did not contest the guard's statement; he
steadfastly remained silent and refused to give any written statement. Later in court, the
guard testified and narrated the statements he gave the police over Arnold's counsel's
objections. While Arnold presented his own witnesses to prove that his possession and
apprehension had been set-up, he himself did not testifY.
The court convicted Arnold, relying largely on his admission of the charge by silence at
the police investigation and during trial.
From the constitutional law perspective, was the court correct in its ruling? (6%)
• 2014, XXIII. The police got a report about a shooting incident during a town
fiesta. One person was killed. The police immediately went to the scene and
started asking the people about what they witnessed. In due time, they were
pointed to Edward Gunman, a security guard, as the possible malefactor.
Edward was then having refreshment in one of the eateries when the police
approached him. They asked him if he had a gun to which question he
answered yes. Then they asked if he had seen anybody shot in the vicinity just
a few minutes earlier and this time he said he did not know about it. After a
few more questions, one of the policemen asked Edward if he was the shooter.
He said no, but then the policeman who asked him told him that several
witnesses pointed to hi m as the shooter. Whereupon Edward broke down and
started explaining that it was a matter of self-defense. Edwardwas eventually
charged with murder. During his trial, the statements he made to the police
were introduced as evidence against him. He obj ected claiming that they were
inadmissible since he was not given his Miranda rights. On the other hand, the
prosecution countered that there was no need for such rights to be given since
he was not yet arrested at the time of the questioning. If you wer e the judge,
how would you rule on the issue? (4%)
• 2016, No. -I- The contents of the vault of ABC company
consisting of cash and documents were stolen. Paulyn, the
treasurer of ABC, was invited by the Makati City Police
Department to shed light on the amount of cash stolen and
the details of the missing documents. Paulyn obliged and
volunteered the information asked. Later, Paulyn was
charged with qualified theft together with other suspects.
Paulyn claims her rights under the Constitution and
pertinent laws were blatantly violated. The police
explained that they were just gathering evidence when
Paulyn was invited for a conference and she was not a
suspect at that time. Rule on her defense. (5%)
• 2018, XVII. The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was
suspected of raping and killing a female high school student. While on
the way to the police station, one of the police officers who served the
warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and killed
the student, and Ariston nodded and said, "Opo." Upon arriving at the
police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and
asked if they could talk privately. The Mayor led Ariston to his office
and, while there in conversation with the Mayor, Ariston broke down
and admitted that he raped and killed the student. The Mayor
thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media
representatives witness Ariston's confession. In the presence of the
Mayor, the police and the media, and in response to questions asked
by some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully confessed his
guilt and sought forgiveness for his actions.
• Which of these extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider
as admissible in evidence against Ariston? (5%)
• 2019 Bar Question: A.4.
• Mrs. W supplies the Philippine National Police (PNP) with uniforms every
year. Last month, he and two (2) other officers of the PNP conspired to
execute a "ghost purchase", covered by five (5) checks amounting to
₱200,000.00 each, or a total of ₱1,000,000.00. An investigating committee
within the PNP, which was constituted to look into it, invited Mrs. W, among
others, for an inquiry regarding the anomalous transaction. Mrs. W accepted
the invitation but during the committee hearing, she stated that she will not
answer any question unless she be provided with the assistance of a counsel.
The PNP officials denied her request; hence, she no longer participated in the
investigation.
• (a) What is a custodial investigation? Under the 1987 Constitution, what
are the rights of a person during custodial investigation? (3%)
• (b) Was the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violative of her right to
counsel in the proceedings conducted before the PNP? Explain.(2%)
Sec. 13. Right to Bail
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Section 13: Right to Bail

When is bail a matter of right ?

1. Before or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC;

2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by
less than reclusion perpetua or death [ SC Administrative Circular
No. 12-94 ]; and
3. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable with
reclusion perpetua or death when the evidence of guilt is not strong.
(Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 13] [But see Pp. v. Sandiganbaya, 2007, if
probability of flight is strong.]
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Section 13: Right to Bail

When is bail not allowed ?

1. After final judgment by any court;
2. Before conviction for an offense punishable by death or
reclusion perpetua where the evidence of guilt is strong; [Constitution,
Art . IV, Sec. 13]
3. After conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
or death while the case is on appeal. [People Vs. Valeriano]
4. After conviction for an offense with the penalty exceeding six
years but but not more than 20 years, if;
A. accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or
has committed a crime aggravated by reiteracion;
B. accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Section 13: Right to Bail

When is bail not allowed ?

C. accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or

conditional pardon;
D. circumstances of accused or his case indicate the probability
of flight;
E. there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal,
accused may commit another crime. [SC Administrative Circular
No. 12-94.
• Section 13: Right to Bail

When is bail a matter of discretion ?

After conviction by the RTC for an offense

punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or
death if any of the circumstance mentioned in
[SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94]. Rule 114 of
the Rules of Court are present.
• Is there a right to bail in extradition?
• 1. Government v. Purganan (2002)– No. It
is not a criminal proceedings.
• 2. Government v. Olalia (2007) – Yes. It is
not limited to criminal proceedings.
• But prove that you are not “flight-risk.”
• Bar questions:
• 2006, IV (2): State whether the following are
constitutional: (2) A law denying persons charged
with crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death the right to bail.
• 2005, VII: State with reasons whether bail is a
matter of right or a matter of discretion in the
following cases:
• (a) the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion
perpetua and the accused is a minor.
• (b) The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life
imprisonment and the accused is a minor.
• © After conviction for homicide on a charge of murder
and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 8
years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years
and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
• (d) after conviction by the RTC for a crime punishable
with prision mayor where accused was previously granted
absolute pardon in a previous conviction
• Other rules:
• 1. The judge cannot determine the strength of evidence
base on the records alone. He must hold a summary
hearing (Mamolo v. Narisma)
• 2. Where bail is a matter of right, the judge cannot hold a
hearing to determine whether he should be allowed bail or
not. [People v. Donato]
• 3. In a hearing for bail, the court cannot take into account
the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
except minority [Peole v. Bravo]
• 4. Bail is not available to military men
facing court martial proceedings for
violation of the Articles of War.
[Comendador v. De Villa]
• 6. Bail can be waived expressly in
writing[Donato] or impliedly [Manes] by
not pursuing one’s petition for bail
• People v. Sandiganbayan, 529 SCRA 764 (2007)
• Jinggoy Estrada, son of former President Estrada, was charged with Plunder, a non-bailable
offense. After hearing his petition for bail, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the evidence of guilt is not
strong and allowed him to post bail. The Ombudsman challenge the order before the Supreme
Court. Where the evidence of guilt is not strong, may the court nevertheless deny an accused the
right to bail? In the case of accused, is there a risk of flight as to justify denial of bail?
• Held: Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of
guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is great. Here, ever
since the promulgation of the assailed Resolutions a little more than four (4) years ago, Jinggoy does
not, as determined by Sandiganbayan, seem to be a flight risk. Bearing in mind his conduct, social
standing and his other personal circumstances, the possibility of his escape in this case seems remote
if not nil. The likelihood of escape on his part is now almost nil, given his election on May 10, 2004,
as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. The Court takes stock of the fact that those who
usually jump bail are shadowy characters mindless of their reputation in the eyes of the people for as
long as they can flee from the retribution of justice. On the other hand, those with a reputation and a
respectable name to protect and preserve are very unlikely to jump bail. The Court, to be sure,
cannot accept any suggestion that someone who has a popular mandate to serve as Senator is
harboring any plan to give up his Senate seat in exchange for becoming a fugitive from justice.
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, 767 SCRA 282
(2015): Bail may be allowed in a non-
bailable offense if “his continued
incarceration is clearly shown to be
injurious to his health or to endanger his
life.”
 1993, No. 9

• Johann was charged with rape. After the

prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann
through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed
a motion therefor, which was denied outright by
the judge.
• Johann claims that he is entitled to bail as a
matter of right, thus the judge should not have
denied his motion to fix bail outright. Is he
correct?
 1989, No. 15

Bar Question:
May an alien invoke the constitutional right to
bail during the pendency of deportation
proceedings?
Extradition – you can post-bail if you’re not flight-risk.
Deportation – no right to bail  not based on any treaty; a
unilateral act on the part of the state to deport an
undesirable alien. No constitutional right
• 2008, No. 7:
• JC, a major in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, is facing prosecution before the
RTC of Quezon City of the murder of his
neighbor whom he suspected to have
molested his 15 year old daughter.
• is JC entitled to bail? Why or why not?
Bar Question, 2012 No. 45. All persons charged shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except
those charged with:
a. offenses punishable by death when evidence of guilt is
strong;
b. offenses punishable by life imprisonment when
evidence of guilt is strong;
c. offenses punishable by death when evidence of guilt is
weak;
d. offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is