Sec 13 - Right To Bail - 11 - 6

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
26 SCRA 522], However, it is a basic

RIGHT TO BAIL principle that the right to bail can be
availed of only by a person who is in
Right to bail. [Sec. 13, Art. Ill: “All persons, custody of the law or otherwise deprived
except those charged with offenses of his liberty, and it would be premature,
punishable by reclusion perpetua when not to say incongruous, to file a petition
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before for bail for someone whose freedom has
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, yet to be curtailed [Cortes v. Judge Catral,
or be released on recognizance as may be infra.]. See Rule 114, Rules of Court
provided by law. The right to bail shall not which provides, among others, that “any
be impaired even when the privilege of the person in custody who is not yet charged
writ of habeas corpus is suspended. in court may apply for bail with any court
Excessive bail shall not be required. ’’] in the province, city or municipality
where he is held”.
DEFINITION: Bail is the security given for
the release of a person in custody of the In Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217,
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, where the petitioners were charged with
conditioned upon his appearance before rebellion complexed with murder and
any court as may be required [Rule 114, multiple frustrated murder, the Court
Sec. 1, Rules of Court], The right to bail ruled that based on the doctrine
emanates from the right to be presumed enunciated in People v. Hernandez, the
innocent. questioned information filed against the
petitioners must be read as charging
WHEN THE RIGHT MAY BE INVOKED, simple rebellion only; hence the
BY WHOM. The right to bail emanates petitioners are entitled to bail before final
from the right to be presumed innocent. It conviction as a matter of right. In People v.
is accorded to a person in custody of the Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130, it was held
law who may by reason of the that the right to bail cannot be denied one
presumption of innocence he enjoys, be who is charged with rebellion, a bailable
allowed provisional liberty upon filing a offense.
security to guarantee his appearance
before any court, as required under In Al-Ghoulv. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
specific circumstances [People v. 126859, September 01, 2001, since the
Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, October 27, penalty for illegal possession of firearms
2006]. had been reduced to less than reclusion
perpetua, the petitioners were deemed
Any person under detention, even if no entitled to bail as a matter of right before
formal charges have yet been filed, can their conviction by the trial court.
invoke the right to bail [Teehankee v.
Rovira, 75 Phil 634; People v. San Diego, In Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
129670, February 1, 2000, the Supreme a matter of right in order to determine the
Court held that the trial court was in error amount of bail.
when the latter required the arraignment
of the accused as a prerequisite to the
approval of the bail bond. In the cases
when bail is authorized, it should be Q: What are the four (4) duties of
granted before arraignment, otherwise, Judge?
the accused may be precluded from filing
ANS
a motion to quash. Furthermore, the court
would be assured of the presence of the 1. Notify the prosecutor after hearing
accused at the arraignment precisely by of the application for bail or
granting bail and ordering his presence at require him to submit his
any stage of the proceeding. recommendation.
2. Conduct the hearing of the
GABBY RECIT
application for bail.
3. Decide whether the evidence of
Q: What is a bail?
guilt of the accused is strong based
ANS - Bail is the security given for the
on summary hearing.
release of a person in custody of the law,
4. If the guilt of the accused is not
furnished by him or a bondsman,
strong, discharge the accused upon
conditioned upon his appearance before
the approval of
any court as may be required [Rule 114,
the bail bond, otherwise, petition
Sec. 1, Rules of Court], The right to bail
should be denied.
emanates from the right to be presumed
innocent.
Q: What are the kinds of bail?

Basco vs. Rapatalo [Adm. Matter No.
ANS – (1) as a matter of right; (2) RTJ-96-1335, March 5, 1997]
discretionary
BAIL, NATURE. A better understanding of
Q: What are the forms of bail? bail as an aspect of criminal procedure
entails appreciating its nature and
ANS – (a) cash deposits; (b) corporate purposes. "Bail" is the security required
surety; (c) property bond; (d) by the court and given by the accused to
recognizance ensure that the accused appears before
the proper court at the scheduled time
Q: is hearing required for bail? and place to answer the charges brought
against him or her. In theory, the only
ANS – Yes. Hearing is required even if it is function of bail is to ensure the

Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
appearance of the defendant at the time determination of whether or not the

set for trial. The sole purpose of confining evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter
the accused in jail before conviction, it has of judicial discretion, remains with the
been observed, is to assure his presence judge. "This discretion by the very nature
at the trial. In other words, if the denial of of things, may rightly be exercised only
bail is authorized in capital offenses, it is after the evidence is submitted to the
only in theory that the proof being strong, court at the hearing. Since the discretion
the defendant would flee, if he has the is directed to the weight of the evidence
opportunity, rather than face the verdict and since evidence cannot properly be
of the court. Hence the exception to the weighed if not duly exhibited or produced
fundamental right to be bailed should be before the court, it is obvious that a
applied in direct ratio to the extent of proper exercise of judicial discretion
probability of evasion of the prosecution. requires that the evidence of guilt be
In practice, bail has also been used to submitted to the court, the petitioner
prevent the release of an accused who having the right of cross examination and
might otherwise be dangerous to society to introduce his own evidence in
or whom the judges might not want to rebuttal."
release."
To be sure, the discretion of the trial court,
It is in view of the abovementioned "is not absolute nor beyond control. It
practical function of bail that it is not a must be sound, and exercised within
matter of right in cases where the person reasonable bounds. Judicial discretion, by
is charged with a capital offense its very nature involves the exercise of the
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua judge's individual opinion and the law has
or life imprisonment. Article 114, section wisely provided that its exercise be
7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, states, guided by well-known rules which, while
"No person charged with a capital offense, allowing the judge rational latitude for the
or an offense punishable by reclusion operation of his own individual views,
perpetua or life imprisonment when the prevent them from getting out of control.
evidence of guilt is strong, shall be An uncontrolled or uncontrollable
admitted to bail regardless of the stage of discretion on the part of a judge is a
the criminal action." misnomer. It is a fallacy. Lord Mansfield,
speaking of the discretion to be exercised
HEARING IS MANDATORY WHEN AN in granting or denying bail said: "But
APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS MADE. When discretion when applied to a court of
the grant of bail is discretionary, the justice means sound discretion guided by
prosecution has the burden of showing law.
that the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong. However, the

Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
It must be governed by rule, not by the judge is mandated to conduct a

humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague hearing even in cases where the
and fanciful; but legal and regular." prosecution chooses to just file a
Consequently, in the application for bail of comment or leave the application for bail
a person charged with a capital offense to the discretion of the court.
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, a hearing, whether Corollarily, another reason why hearing
summary or otherwise in the discretion of of a petition for bail is required, as can be
the court, must actually be conducted to gleaned from the abovecited case, is for
determine whether or not the evidence of the court to take into consideration the
guilt against the accused is strong. "A guidelines set forth in Section 6, Rule 114
summary hearing means such brief and of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount
speedy method of receiving and of bail. This Court, in a number of cases
considering the evidence of guilt as is held that even if the prosecution fails to
practicable and consistent with the adduce evidence in opposition to an
purpose of hearing which is merely to application for bail of an accused, the
determine the weight of evidence for the court may still require that it answer
purposes of bail. questions in order to ascertain not only
the strength of the state's evidence but
On such hearing, the court does not sit to also the adequacy of the amount of bail.
try the merits or to enter into any nice
inquiry as to the weight that ought to be DUTIES OF THE COURTS WHENEVER
allowed to the evidence for or against the AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS FILED
accused, nor will it speculate on the BEFORE THEM. In the light of the
outcome of the trial or on what further applicable rules on bail and the
evidence may be therein offered and jurisprudential principles just enunciated,
admitted. The course of inquiry may be this Court reiterates the duties of the trial
left to the discretion of the court which judge in case an application for bail is
may confine itself to receiving such filed:
evidence as has reference to substantial
matters, avoiding unnecessary (1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
thoroughness in the examination and the application for bail or require him to
cross examination." If a party is denied submit his recommendation (Section 18,
the opportunity to be heard, there would Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as
be a violation of procedural due process. amended);
Since the determination of whether or not (2) Conduct a hearing of the application
the evidence of guilt against the accused for bail regardless of whether or not the
is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, prosecution refuses to present evidence

Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
to show that the guilt of the accused is

strong for the purpose of enabling the In his comment, respondent Judge alleged
court to exercise its sound discretion that he granted the petition based on the
(Sections 7 and 8, supra); prosecutor's option not to oppose the
petition as well as the latter's
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt recommendation setting the bailbond in
of the accused is strong based on the the amount of P80,000.00. He averred
summary of evidence of the prosecution that when the prosecution chose not to
(Baylon v. Sison, supra); oppose the petition for bail, he had the
discretion on whether to approve it or not.
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
discharge the accused upon the approval Issue: Whether a petition for bail can be
of the bailbond. (Section 19, supra). granted without conducting a hearing.
Otherwise, petition should be denied.
Held: No. When the grant of bail is
discretionary, the prosecution has the
INOCENCIO BASCO vs. JUDGE LEO H. burden of showing that the evidence of
RAPATALO guilt against the accused is strong.
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335. March 5, 1997, However, the determination of whether
ROMERO, J. or not the evidence of guilt is strong,
being a matter of judicial discretion,
Since the determination of whether or not remains with the judge.
the evidence of guilt against the accused
is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, "This discretion by the very nature of
the judge is mandated to conduct a things, may rightly be exercised only after
hearing even in cases where the the evidence is submitted to the court at
prosecution chooses to just file a the hearing. Since the discretion is
comment or leave the application for bail directed to the weight of the evidence and
to the discretion of the court. since evidence cannot properly be
weighed if not duly exhibited or produced
Facts: The complainant Inocencio Basco, before the court, it is obvious that a
father of the victim, charged respondent proper exercise of judicial discretion
Judge Leo M. Rapatalo of RTC, Branch 32, requires that the evidence of guilt be
Agoo, La Union with gross ignorance or submitted to the court, the petitioner
willful disregard of established rule of law having the right of cross examination and
for granting bail to an accused Roger to introduce his own evidence in
Morente in a murder case without rebuttal."
receiving evidence and conducting a
hearing.

Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Consequently, in the application for bail of unresolved petition for bail is deemed a
a person charged with a capital offense waiver of the right to bail. Furthermore,
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua the conviction of the accused renders the
or life imprisonment, a hearing, whether petition for bail moot and academic
summary or otherwise in the discretion of [People v. Manes, G.R. No. 122737,
the court, must actually be conducted to February 17, 1999],
determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong. If a Bail and suspension of the privilege of
party is denied the opportunity to be the writ of habeas corpus. The right to
heard, there would be a violation of bail is not impaired by the suspension of
procedural due process. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
[Sec. 13, Art. III].
A hearing is likewise required if the
prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in
opposition to the application to grant and
Penalty at the time of the application for
fix bail. Corollarily, another reason why
bail must be considered if more favorable
hearing of a petition for bail is required is
to the accused in the case of People vs
for the court to take into consideration
Judge Donato.
the guidelines set forth in Section 6, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the
amount of bail. The absence of objection
from the prosecution is never a basis for People vs. Judge Donato [G.R. No.
granting bail to the accused. It is the 79269, June 5, 1991]
court's determination after a hearing that
the guilt of the accused is not strong that THE CHARACTER OF BAIL SHALL BE
forms the basis for granting bail. DETERMINED BY THE LAW IN FORCE
AT THE TIME THAT THE APPLICATION
IS PENDING. Unquestionably, at the time
Waiver of the right to bail. The right to the original and the amended
bail is another of the constitutional rights Informations for rebellion and the
which can be waived. It is a right which is application for bail were filed before the
personal to the accused and whose waiver court below the penalty imposable for the
would not be contrary to law, public offense for which the private respondent
order, public policy, morals, or good was charged was reclusion perpetua to
customs, or prejudicial to a third person death. During the pendency of the
with a right recognized by law [People v. application for bail Executive Order No.
Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130], 187 was issued by the President, by virtue
of which the penalty for rebellion as
a) The failure of the accused to call the
originally provided for in Article 135 of
attention of the trial court to the

Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the Revised Penal Code was restored. The Therefore, before conviction bail is either
restored law was the governing law at the a matter of right or of discretion. It is a
time the respondent court resolved the matter of right when the offense charged
petition for bail. is punishable by any penalty lower than
reclusion perpetua. To that extent the
We agree with the respondent court that right is absolute.
bail cannot be denied to the private
respondent for he is charged with the Upon the other hand, if the offense
crime of rebellion as defined in Article charged is punishable by reclusion
134 of the Revised Penal Code to which is perpetua bail becomes a matter of
attached the penalty of prision mayor and discretion. It shall be denied if the
a fine not exceeding P20,000.00. It is, evidence of guilt is strong. The court's
therefore, a bailable offense under Section discretion is limited to determining
13 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.
which provides thus: But once it is determined that the
evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also
"Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged becomes a matter of right. In Teehankee
with offenses punishable by reclusion vs. Director of Prisons, supra., We held:
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by "The provision on bail in our Constitution
sufficient sureties, or be released on is patterned after similar provisions
recognizance as may be prescribed by law. contained in the Constitution of the
The right to bail shall not be impaired even United States and that of many states of
when the privilege of the writ of habeas the Union. And it is said that:
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be required." 'The Constitution of the United States and
the constitution of the many states
Section 3, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, provide that all persons shall be bailable
as amended, also provides: "Bail, a by sufficient sureties, except for capital
matter of right: exception. — All persons offenses, where the proof is evident or the
in custody shall, before final conviction, be presumption of guilt is great, and, under
entitled to bail as a matter of right, except such provisions, bail is a matter of right
those charged with a capital offense or an which no court or judge can properly
offense which, under the law at the time of refuse, in all cases not embraced in the
its commission and at the time of the exceptions. Under such provisions bail is
application for bail, is punishable by a matter of right even in cases of capital
reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt offenses, unless the proof of guilt is
is strong." evident or the presumption thereof is
great!"

Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Accordingly, the prosecution does not

have the right to present evidence for the PEOPLE VS DONATO G.R. No. 79269,
denial of bail in the instances where bail June 5, 1991,Davide, Jr., J.
is a matter of right. However, in the cases Facts: In the criminal case filed with the
where the grant of bail is discretionary, Regional Trial Court of Manila, private
due process requires that the prosecution respondent Salas and his co-accused were
must be given an opportunity to present, charged for the crime of rebellion under
within a reasonable time, all the evidence
Article 134, in relation to Article 135 of
that it may desire to introduce before the the Revised Penal Code (RPC). At the time
court should resolve the motion for bail. the Information was filed, Salas and his
co-accused were in military custody
THE RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE WAIVED. following their arrest. A day after the
We hereby rule that the right to bail is filing of the original information, a
another of the constitutional rights which
petition for habeas corpus for Salas and
can be waived. It is a right which is his co-accused was filed with the Supreme
personal to the accused and whose waiver Court which was dismissed in the Court’s
would not be contrary to law, public Resolution on the basis of the agreement
order, public policy, morals, or good of the parties under which Salas "will
customs, or prejudicial to a third person remain in legal custody and will face trial
with a right recognized by law.
before the court having custody over his
person" and the warrants for the arrest of
Even the 1987 Constitution expressly his co-accused are deemed recalled and
recognizes a waiver of rights guaranteed they shall be immediately released but
by its Bill of Rights. Section 12(1) of shall submit themselves to the court
Article III thereof on the right to remain having jurisdiction over their person.
silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his Salas filed with the trial court a Motion to
own choice states: Quash the Information. Respondent Judge
denied the motion to quash. Subsequently,
". . . These rights cannot be waived except Salas filed a petition for bail, which herein
in writing and in the presence of counsel." petitioner opposed on the ground that
This provision merely particularizes the
since rebellion became a capital offense
form and manner of the waiver; it, under the provisions of Presidential
nevertheless, clearly suggests that the Decrees (PD), which amended Article 135
other rights may be waived in some other of the RPC, by imposing the penalty of
form or manner provided such waiver reclusion perpetua to death on those who
will not offend Article 6 of the Civil Code. promote, maintain, or head a rebellion so

Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the accused is no longer entitled to bail as he has expressly waived his right to bail.
evidence of his guilt is strong. This Court has recognized waivers of
constitutional rights such as, for example,
On 5 June 1987, the President issued an the right against unreasonable searches
Executive Order (EO) repealing, among and seizures; the right to counsel and to
others, the PDs and restoring to full force remain silent; and the right to be heard.
and effect Article 135 of the RPC. Thus, The only limitation to the waiver of right
the original penalty for rebellion, prision to bail is that provide in Art. 6 of the Civil
mayor and a fine not to exceed Code. Rights may be waived, unless the
P20,000.00, was restored. waiver is contrary to law, public order,
public policy, morals, or good customs, or
Issue: Whether or not the right to bail prejudicial to a third person with a right
may, under certain circumstances, be recognized by law.
denied to a person who is charged with a
bailable offense
Held: Yes. Bail cannot be denied to Salas People vs. Fortes [G.R. No. 90643, June
for he is charged with the crime of 25, 1993]
rebellion as defined in Article 134 of the
Revised Penal Code to which is attached BAIL CANNOT BE GRANTED ON AN
the penalty of prision mayor and a fine
ACCUSED WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED
not exceeding P20,000.00. It is, therefore, OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE EVEN IF THE
a bailable offense under Section 13 of JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS
Article III of the 1987 Constitution which APPEALED. The clear implication,
provides thus: All persons, except those therefore, is that if an accused who is
charged with offenses punishable by charged with a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt reclusion perpetua is convicted by the
is strong, shall, before conviction, be trial court and sentenced to suffer such a
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on
released on recognizance as may be the part of the accused nor of discretion
prescribed by law. The right to bail shall on the part of the court. In such a
not be impaired even when the privilege situation, the court would not have only
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
determined that the evidence of guilt is
Excessive bail shall not be required. strong — which would have been
sufficient to deny bail even before
Salas has, however, waived his right to conviction — it would have likewise ruled
bail in the criminal case. In agreeing to that the accused's guilt has been proven
remain in legal custody even during the beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not
pendency of the trial of his criminal case,
then be granted to the accused during the

Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
pendency of his appeal from the judgment denying his application for bail, filed after
of conviction. Construing Section 3, Rule his conviction, to secure his provisional
114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal liberty pending the resolution of his
Procedure, as amended, this Court, in the appeal.
en banc Resolution of 15 October 1991 in
People vs. Ricardo Cortez, ruled that: Issue: Whether or not before conviction
by final judgment, the accused enjoys the
"Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an constitutional presumption of innocence,
accused who is charged with a capital and is therefore entitled to bail as a
offense or an offense punishable by matter of right
reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be
entitled to bail as a matter of right even if Ruling: No. It is clear from Section 13,
he appeals the case to this Court since his Article III of the 1987 Constitution and
conviction clearly imports that the Section 3, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
evidence of his guilt of the offense Court, as amended, that: . . . before
charged is strong." conviction, bail is either a matter of right
or of discretion. It is a matter of right
when the offense charged is punishable
PEOPLE VS FORTES by any penalty lower than reclusion
G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993, Davide, perpetua. To that extent the right is
JR., J. absolute. xxx xxx xxx
Facts: The conviction of Agustin Fortes Upon the other hand, if the offense
for the rape of a 13-year old sixth grade charged is punishable by reclusion
pupil and the denial by the trial court of perpetua, bail becomes a matter of
his application for bail pending his appeal discretion. It shall be denied if the
from the judgment of conviction are evidence of guilt is strong. The court's
questioned in these consolidated cases. discretion is limited to determining
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.
In G.R. No. 90643, the accused appeals But once it is determined that the
from the decision of the Regional Trial evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also
Court. The court a quo, in its Decision, becomes a matter of right. . . .
found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced The clear implication, therefore is that if
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion an accused who is charged with a crime
perpetua and pay the victim the sum of punishable by reclusion perpetua is
P20,000.00. In G.R. No. 91155, the subject convicted by the trial court and sentenced
matter we are concerned with, the to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a
accused seeks to annul and set aside two matter of right on the part of the accused
related orders of the said trial court
Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
nor of discretion on the part of the court. punishable by preclusion perpetua is

In such a situation, the court would not convicted by the trial court and sentenced
have only determined that the evidence of to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a
guilt is strong which would have been matter of right on the part of the accused
sufficient to deny bail even before nor a matter of discretion on the part of
conviction – it would have likewise ruled the court; an application fori bail must be
that the accused's guilt has been proven denied.
beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not
then be granted to the accused during the In People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA 402, the
pendency of his appeal from the judgment Supreme Court held that where a person
of conviction. has been convicted by the trial court and
sentenced to the penalty of imprisonment
In the instant case, the rape for which the for 22 years, the penalty imposed is
accused was indicted is punishable by classified as reclusion perpetua; and
reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article while the case is on appeal, bail may be
335 of the Revised Penal Code; he was denied, because the offense is punishable
convicted therefor and subsequently by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of
sentenced to serve that penalty. It is thus guilt is strong.
evident that the trial court correctly
denied his application for bail during the b) Traditionally, the right to bail is not
pendency of the appeal. available to the military. In Comendador
V. de Villa, 200 SCRA 80, it was held that
traditionally, the right to bail has not been
NACHURA: recognized and is not available to the
military, as an exception to the Bill of
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT F BAIL Rights.
a) When charged with an offense This much was suggested in Arula v.
punishable by reclusion perpetua for Espino, 28 SCRA 540, where the Court
higher and evidence of guilt is strong. In observed that "the right to speedy trial is
Carpió v. Judge Maglalang, 196 SCRA 41, given more emphasis in the military
the Supreme Court said that where the where the right to bail does not exist”.
accused is charged, with an offense The denial; of the right to bail to the
punishable by reclusion perpetua, it is the military does not violate the equal
duty of the judge to determine if evidence protection clause because there is
of guilt is strong for purposes of deciding substantial distinction between the
whether bail may be granted or not. In military and civilians.
People v. Fortes, and Fortes v. Judge Guam
223 SCRA 619, it was held that if an
accused who is charged with a crime?

Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
GABBY RECIT: allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by

the government for the discharge of their
Q: Are members of the PNP entitled to duties and responsibilities and are paid
bail? out of revenues collected from the people.
All other insurgent elements carry out
ANS – Yes. The principle in the case of
comendador is only applicable when their activities outside of and against the
existing political system.
members of the AFP are undergoing court
martial proceedings. If AFP members and
National security considerations should
officers are charged before regular courts,
also impress upon this Honorable Court
then they are entitled to bail.
that release on bail of respondents
constitutes a damaging precedent.
Imagine a scenario of say 1,000 putschists
Commendador vs. De Villa [G.R. No. roaming the streets of the Metropolis on
93177, August 2, 1991] bail, or if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order
were sustained, on 'provisional" bail. The
THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS NOT AVAILABLE sheer number alone is already
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED discomforting. But, the truly disquieting
FORCES. We find that the right to bail thought is that they could freely resume
invoked by the private respondents in G.R. their heinous activity which could very
Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been well result in the overthrow of duly
recognized and is not available in the constituted authorities, including this
military, as an exception to the general Honorable Court, and replace the same
rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. This with a system consonant with their own
much was suggested in Arula, where we concept of government and justice.
observed that "the right to a speedy trial
is given more emphasis in the military The argument that denial from the
where the right to bail does not exist." military of the right to bail would violate
the equal protection clause is not
The justification for this exception was acceptable. This guaranty requires equal
well explained by the Solicitor General as treatment only of persons or things
follows: similarly situated and does not apply
where the subject of the treatment is
The unique structure of the military substantially different from others. The
should be enough reason to exempt accused officers can complain if they are
military men from the constitutional denied bail and other members of the
coverage on the right to bail. Aside from military are not. But they cannot say they
structural peculiarity, it is vital to note have been discriminated against because
that mutinous soldiers operate within the
framework of democratic system, are
Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
they are not allowed the same right that is authority either to set aside its ruling
extended to civilians. denying bail to the private respondents.
Issue: Whether or not the right to bail

COMMENDADOR VS DE VILLA invoked by the private respondents in G.R.
G.R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991, Cruz, J. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been
recognized and is not available in the
Facts: These four cases have been military, as an exception to the general
consolidated because they involve rule embodied in the Bill of Rights
practically the same parties and related
issues arising from the same incident. The Held: Yes. The right to bail invoked by the
petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 private respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020
and the private respondents in G.R. Nos. has traditionally not been recognized and
95020 and 97454 are officers of the is not available in the military, as an
Armed Forces of the Philippines facing exception to the general rule embodied in
prosecution for their alleged participation the Bill of Rights. The right to a speedy
in the failed coup d' etat that took place trial is given more emphasis in the
on December 1 to 9, 1989. military where the right to bail does not
exist. The unique structure of the military
In G.R. No. 93177, which is a petition for should be enough reason to exempt
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, military men from the constitutional
they are questioning the conduct of the coverage on the right to bail. National
Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel security considerations should also
constituted to investigate the charges impress upon this Honorable Court that
against them and the creation of the release on bail of respondents constitutes
General Court Martial (GCM) convened to a damaging precedent.
try them.
The argument that denial from the
In G.R. No. 96948, the petitioners, besides military of the right to bail would violate
challenging the legality of GCM No. 14, the equal protection clause is not
seek certiorari against its ruling denying acceptable. This guaranty requires equal
them the right to peremptory challenge as treatment only of persons or things
granted by Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408. similarly situated and do not apply where
the subject of the treatment is
In G.R. No. 95020, the subject matter we substantially different from others. The
are concerned with, the orders of the accused officers can complain if they are
respondent judge of the Regional Trial denied bail and other members of the
Court of Quezon City are assailed on military are not. But they cannot say they
certiorari on the ground that he has no have been discriminated against because
jurisdiction over GCM No. 14 and no
Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
they are not allowed the same right that is petition for hearing and diligently
extended to civilians. ascertain from the prosecution whether
the latter was not really contesting the
bail application.
In Delos Santos-Reyes v. Judge Montesa,

NACHURA
247 SCRA 85, the Court sanctioned the
Duty of the Court when accused is Judge who, after examining the records of
charged with an offense punishably by the cases forwarded to him by the
reclusion perpetua or higher: A hearing prosecution, and after finding the
on the motion for bail must be conducted existence of probable cause, instead of
by the judge to determine whether or not issuing the corresponding warrants of
the evidence of guilt is strong. Whether arrest for the purpose of acquiring
the motion is resolved in summary jurisdiction over the persons of the
proceedings or in the course of regular accused, ex mero motu granted bail to the
trial, the prosecution must be given an accused despite the absence (because of
opportunity to present all the evidence prior withdrawal) of a petition for bail;
that it may wish to introduce on the and worse, the lack of hearing wherein
probable guilt of the accused before the the prosecution could have been accorded
court resolves the motion for bail. Even if the right to present evidence showing
the prosecution refuses to adduce that the evidence of guilt was strong.
evidence, or fails to interpose an objection
In Buzon v. Judge Velasco, 253 SCRA 601,
to the motion for] bail, it is still
the Court reiterated the rule that bail is
mandatory for the court to conduct a
not a matter of right in cases where the
hearing, or ask searching and clarificatory
offense for which the accused stands
questions from which it may infer the
charged is punishable by reclusion
strength of the evidence of guilt, or lack of
perpetua when the evidence of guilt is
it, against the accused [Baylon v. Judge
strong. While it is true that the weight of
Sisón, 243 SCRA 284; Marallag v. Judge
the evidence adduced is addressed to the
Cloribel. A.M, No. 00-1529-RTJ, April 09,
sound discretion of the court, such
2002].
discretion may be exercised only after the
a) In Tucay v. Judge Domagas, 242 SCRA hearing called to ascertain the degree of
110, the Court found the Judge to have guilt of the accused. At the hearing, the
violated the Rules of Court, because court should assure that the prosecution
although the Provincial Prosecutor is afforded the opportunity to adduce
interposed no objection to the petition for evidence relevant to the factual issue,
bail filed by the accused, it was still with the applicant having the right of
incumbent upon the Judge to set the cross- examination and to introduce his
own evidence in rebuttal. Without a

Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
hearing, the judge could not possibly where it is authorized, bail should be
assess the weight of the evidence against granted before arraignment, otherwise
the accused before granting the latter’s the accused may be precluded from filing
application for bail. a motion to quash.
In Basco v. Judge Rapatalo, A.M. No. RTJ- c) The court’s order granting or refusing
96- 1335, March 5, 1997, the Supreme bail must contain a summary of the
Court reiterated that in the application for evidence for the prosecution [People v.
bail of a person charged with a capital Judge Cabral, G.R. No. 131909, February
offense punishable by death, reclusion 18, 1999]. The assessment of the
perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing, evidence presented during a bail hearing
whether summary or otherwise in the is intended only for the purpose of
discretion of the court, must actually be granting or denying an application for the
conducted to determine whether or not provisional release of the accused. Not
evidence of guilt against the accused is being a final assessment, courts tend to be
strong. See also People v. Manes, G.R. No. liberal in their appreciation of evidence.
122737, February 17, 1999; Tabao v. But it is not an uncommon occurrence
Judge Espina, A.M. RTJ-96-1347, June 29, than an accused person granted bail is
1999; Marzan-Gelacio v. Judge Flores, convicted in due course [People v.
A.M. RTJ-99- 1498]. . Palarca, G.R. No. 146020 May 29 2002],’
b) The hearing on a petition for bail need

not at all times precede arraignment,
because the rule is that a person deprived GABBY RECIT
of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or
voluntary surrender may apply for bail as Q: Is bail required to comply with the3-
soon as he is deprived of his liberty, even day notice rule?
before a complaint or information is filed ANS – Yes, in the case of Baylon vs Judge
against him. When bail is a matter of right, Sison
the accused may apply for and be granted
bail even prior to arraignment. Even Q: What are the three (3)
when the charge is a capital offense, if the circumstances under section 5, Rule
court finds that the accused is entitled to 114?
bail because the evidence of guilt is not ANS - Section 5 of Rule 114
strong, he may be granted provisional
liberty even before arraignment [Serapio Q: In determining whether accused is
v. Sandiganbayan, supra.]. In Lavides v. admitted to bail, are aggravating
Court of Appeals, infra.,the accused filed circumstance considered?
a petition for bail as well as a motion to ANS – No
quash, and the Court said that in cases

Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Q: What is a three (3) day motion rule? theory that the petition for bail is an
ANS – In the case of Baylon - it is urgent motion and may therefore be
mandatory in order to allow the heard on shorter notice. Such
prosecution to secure reasonable time to ratiocination, which espouses and reveals
adequately prepare for the case. a distorted notion as to the true nature
and conditions of the right to bail, does
violence to the well-established rule of
law that bail is not a matter of right and
Baylon vs. Judge Sison [Adm. Matter No. requires a hearing where the accused is
92-7-360-0, April 6, 1995] charged with an offense which is
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
APPLICATION FOR BAIL SHALL or life imprisonment. Given this
FOLLOW THE 3-DAY MOTION RULE. contingency, respondent judge should
Complainant alleges that the prosecution have carefully scrutinized the validity of
was not given notice of the petition for the petition for bail and the veracity of its
bail at least three (3) days prior to the allegations, rather than cavalierly
scheduled hearing thereof. It bears considering
emphasis that the petition for bail was it outright as an urgent motion.
filed in court and a copy thereof served on
the prosecution on December 21, 1991, a There are two main arguments invoked
Saturday, and was craftily set for hearing and relied on by respondent judge to
on December 23, 1991, thereby giving the support and justify his grant of bail to the
prosecution only one day, a Sunday at accused, namely, that time was of the
that, to prepare its opposition thereto. essence, considering that the accused had
The stratagem employed by the defense been detained since October 21, 1991;
which virtually deprived the prosecution and that the prosecution failed to
of an opportunity to adequately counter interpose an objection to the granting of
the representations in its petition is too bail and to ask for an opportunity to
obvious to be ignored. Yet respondent prove the strength of the evidence of guilt
judge condoned the same and aggravated against the accused.
the situation by the unusual and
precipitate haste with which the petition We reject the first tenuous proposition
was granted by respondent judge. that time was of the essence, since the
ambient circumstances obtaining prior to
On top of that, he exacerbated his the grant of bail could not but have
disregard of settled rules of procedure by cautioned respondent judge to be more
justifying his non-observance of the circumspect in entertaining and resolving
three-day notice rule under Section 4, the petition therefore. First, the accused
Rule 15 of the Rules of Court on the were charged with double murder, each

Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
of which is punishable by reclusion accused filed a petition for bail on a

perpetua to death, hence bail is not a Saturday, and requested that it be set for
matter of right. hearing the immediately following
Monday.
Second, no bail was recommended in the
information which was filed on the bases On this latter date, the prosecution filed
of the sworn statements of several an opposition to the petition for bail
eyewitnesses to the incident, thus alleging, among others, that the
constituting clear and strong evidence of information was filed on the bases of the
the guilt of all the accused. Third, at the sworn statements of several eyewitnesses
time of the application for bail, there was to the incident which constitutes clear
still pending a reinvestigation of the case and strong evidence of the guilt of all the
being conducted by the Office of the City accused. Nevertheless, a hearing on the
Prosecutor. It must be noted that the petition was purportedly held by the trial
reinvestigation was at the instance of the court and bail was granted for the
accused themselves, hence any resultant provisional liberty of each of the accused.
delay caused by the conduct thereof is A motion for reconsideration was filed by
naturally and logically attributable to the prosecution but the same was denied
them. by respondent judge. Significantly, the
orders granting bail, and that denying
And, finally, the guileful setting of the reconsideration thereof, became the
hearing of the petition for bail on subject of a petition for certiorari filed by
December 23, 1991, when the same was the prosecution and were subsequently
filed only on December 21, 1991 which annulled and set aside by CA.
was a Saturday, readily casts doubt on the
good faith in and the regularity of the The private complainant filed a motion
procedure adopted by the defense. for respondent judge to inhibit himself
from the case. Respondent judge denied
the motion to inhibit and later also denied
BAYLON V. SISON the motion for reconsideration. To
A.M. No. 92-7-360-0, April 6, 1995, support and justify his grant of bail to the
Regalado, J. accused, respondent judge avers that time
was of the essence, considering that the
Facts: The Office of the City Prosecutor in accused had been detained since October
Dagupan City filed an information for 21, 1991 and that the prosecution failed
double murder against several accused to interpose an objection to the granting
and thereafter raffled to respondent judge. of bail and to ask for an opportunity to
The accused filed a petition for prove the strength of the evidence of guilt
reinvestigation which was granted by the against the accused.
trial court. During the reinvestigation, the
Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
NACHURA
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge
was justified in his grant of bail to the
accused. Bail is either a matter of right, or at the
judge’s discretion, or it may be denied
Held: While the determination of whether [Rule 114, Rules of Court],
or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a
matter of judicial discretion, this a) Bail, a matter of right. All persons in
discretion may be exercised only after custody shall
evidence is submitted to the court. The
[i] before or after conviction by the
prosecution must be given an opportunity
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
to present, within a reasonable time, all
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and
the evidence that it may desire to
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and
introduce before the court may resolve
the motion for bail. If the prosecution [ii] before conviction by the Regional Trial
should be denied such an opportunity, Court of an offense not punishable by death,
there would be a violation of procedural reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be
due process, and the order of the court admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
granting bail should be considered void sufficient sureties, or be released on
on that ground. recognizance as prescribed by law or this
Rule [Sec. 4, Rule 114].
Even if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence or fails to interpose an objection b) Bail, when discretionary. Upon
to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory conviction by the Regional Trial Court
for the court to conduct a hearing or ask of an offense not punishable by death,
searching and clarificatory questions reclusion perpetua or life
from which it may infer the strength of imprisonment, the court, on
the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it, application, may admit the accused to
against the accused. bail. The court, in its discretion, may
allow the accused to continue on
The obstinate persistence of respondent provisional liberty under the same bail
judge in posturing that he did conduct a bond during the period to appeal subject
hearing is belied by the fact that the order to the consent of the bondsman. If the
granting bail leaves much to be desired. It court imposed a penalty of imprisonment
does not contain the requisite summary of exceeding six years but not more than
the evidence presented by the parties and twenty years, the accused shall be denied
necessary to support the grant of bail. bail, or his bail previously granted shall
be cancelled, upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of

Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the following or other similar without a hearing is gross ignorance of

circumstances: the law, and the judge was subjected to a
fine of P20,000.00.
[i] that the accused is a recidivist, quasi-
recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has c) When bail shall be denied. When the
committed the crime aggravated by the accused is charged with a capital offense,
circumstance of reiteration; or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or higher and evidence of guilt is
[ii] that the accused is found to have strong, then bail shall be denied, as it is
previously escaped from legal confinement, neither a matter of right or of discretion
evaded sentence or has violated the [Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA
conditions of his bail without valid 155], Thus, in Trillanes IV v. Pimentel,
justification; G.R. No. 179817, where Senator Antonio
Trillanes, charged with coup d’ etat,
[iii] that the accused committed the offense sought to be allowed to attend senate
while on probation, parole, or under sessions and to convene his staff, resource
conditional pardon; persons and guests and to attend to his
official functions as senator, the Supreme
[iv] that the circumstances of the accused
Court dnied the petition.
or his case indicate the probability of flight
if released on bail; or The petitioner’s contention that he is not
a flight risk is irrelevant as it is only
[v] that there is undue risk that during the
material in ascertaining the amount of
pendency of the appeal, the accused may bail and in cancelling a discretionary
commit another crime [Sec. 5, Rule 114].
grant of bail. In this case, where the
i) However, whether bail is a matter of offense charged is a non-bailable offense,
right or of discretion, reasonable notice what is controlling is the determination
of hearing is required to be given to the by the trial court that the evidence of his
prosecutor, or at least he must be asked guilt is strong. It is impractical to draw a
for his recommendation, because in fixing line between convicted prisoners and pre-
the amount of bail, the judge is required trial detainees for the purpose of
maintaining jail security, and while pre-
to take into account a number of factors
such as the applicant’s character and trial detainees do not forfeit their
reputation, forfeiture of other bonds, etc. constitutional rights upon confinement,
[Cortes v. Judge Catral, AM. No. RTJ-97- the fact of their detention makes their
1387, September 10, 1997], This was rights limited than those of the public.
The presumption of innocence does not
reiterated in Taborite v. Sollesta, A.M.
No. MTJ-02-1388, August 12, 2003, that carry with it full enjoyment of civil and
granting bail in non-bailable offenses political rights.

Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
i) Where the accused is charged with a evidence against him, the probability of
crime punishable by reclusion perpetua his appearing at the trial, the forfeiture of
and is convicted by the trial court and other bonds by him, the fact that he was a
sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is fugitive from justice when arrested, and
neither a matter of right nor a matter of the pendency of other cases in which he is
discretion; an application for bail must be under bond. See de la Camara v. Enage,
denied [People v. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619]. 41 SCRA 1; Villasenor v. Abano, 21 SCRA
Likewise, in People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA 312. In Yap v. Court of Appeals,
402, the Supreme Court held that where a supra.,the bail of P5.5- million
person has been convicted by the trial recommended by the Solicitor General for
court and sentenced to the penalty of the provisional liberty of the accused who
imprisonment for 22 years, the penalty had already been convicted by the trial
imposed is classified as reclusion court in an estafa case, was held to be
perpetua, and while the case is on appeal, excessive, as bail is not intended to
bail shall be denied because the offense is assume the civil liability of the accused.
punishable by reclusion perpetua and the
evidence of guilt is strong. In Obosa v.
Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281, it was
held that the principle denying bail to an MANOTOC V. CA
accused charged with a capital offense G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986, Fernan,
where evidence of guilt is strong, applies J.
with equal force to the appellant who,
though convicted of an offense not Facts: Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr.,
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua is one of the two principal stockholders of
or life imprisonment, was nevertheless Trans-Insular Management, Inc., where he
originally charged with a capital offense. acts as president and the Manotoc
Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house.
Right to bail and right to travel abroad. Together with his co-stockholders, he
See Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, supra.; filed a petition with the Securities and
Silverio v. Court of Appeals, supra; Exchange Commission for the
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, supra.. appointment of a management committee
for the aforesaid companies, which
Standards for fixing bail. In Sec. 6, Rule petition was granted.
114, Rules of Court, among the factors to
be considered by the judge in fixing bail Pending disposition of the SEC case, SEC
are the financial ability of the accused, the requested the then Commissioner of
nature and circumstances of the offense, Immigration not to clear petitioner for
the penalty for the offense charged, the departure and a memorandum to this
character and reputation of the accused, effect was issued. When a Torrens title
his age and health, the weight of the submitted to and accepted by Manotoc
Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Securities, Inc. was suspected to be fake, Issue: Does a person facing a criminal
six of its clients filed six separate criminal indictment and provisionally released on
complaints against petitioner and the bail have an unrestricted right to travel?
vice-president of Manotoc Securities, Inc.
Corresponding criminal charges for estafa Held: No. The object of bail is to relieve
were filed and in all cases, petitioner was the accused of imprisonment and the
admitted to bail. state of the burden of keeping him,
pending the trial, and at the same time, to
Petitioner filed before each of the trial put the accused as much under the power
courts a motion entitled, "motion for of the court as if he were in custody of the
permission to leave the country," stating proper officer, and to secure the
as ground therefor his desire to go to the appearance of the accused so as to answer
United States, "relative to his business the call of the court and do what the law
transactions and opportunities." The may require of him. The condition
prosecution opposed said motion and imposed upon petitioner to make himself
both trial judges denied the same. available at all times whenever the court
Petitioner likewise wrote the Immigration requires his presence operates as a valid
Commissioner requesting the withdrawal restriction on his right to travel. To allow
of the latter's memorandum, but said the accused from leaving the jurisdiction
request was denied. Petitioner filed a of the Philippines would render nugatory
petition for certiorari and mandamus the courts' orders and processes and
before the CA seeking to annul the orders inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts
of the trial courts. CA denied the petition. from which they issued does not extend
Petitioner filed the instant petition for beyond that of the Philippines they would
review on certiorari. have no binding force outside of said
jurisdiction. Indeed, if the accused were
Petitioner filed a motion for leave to go allowed to leave the Philippines without
abroad pendente lite, but the Court sufficient reason, he may be placed
denied said motion. Petitioner contends beyond the reach of the courts.
that having been admitted to bail as a
matter of right, neither the courts which
granted him bail nor the Securities and NACHURA:
Exchange Commission which has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent Right to bail and extradition. In
him from exercising his constitutional Government of the U.S. v. Judge
right to travel. Puruganan and Mark Jimenez, G.R. No.
148571, December 17, 2002, the
Supreme Court denied with finality Mark
Jimenez’s motion for reconsideration of

Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the court’s earlier decision to declare null not be a flight risk or a danger to the
and void the order of Judge Puruganan community, and (b) there exist special,
granting bail to Mark Jimenez. The court humanitarian and compelling
said that, as suggested by the use of the circumstances including, as a matter of
word “conviction”, the constitutional reciprocity, those cited by the highest
provision on bail applies only when a court in the requesting state when it
person has been arrested and detained grants provisional liberty in extradition
for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It cases therein.
does not apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not render a) This ruling in Puruganan was
judgments of conviction or acquittal. modified in Government of HongKong v.
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail Hon. Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No.
“flows from the presumption of innocence 153675, April 19, 2007, where the Court
in favor of every accused who should not said that it cannot ignore the modern
be subjected to the loss of freedom as trend in public international law which
thereafter he would be entitled to places a primacy on the worth of the
acquittal unless his guilt be proved individual person and the sanctity of
beyond reasonable doubt”. human rights. While the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is not a
It follows that the constitutional provision treaty, its principles are now recognized
on bail will not apply to a case of as customarily binding upon the members
extradition where the presumption of of the international community.
innocence is not an issue. That the
offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be This Court, in Mejoff v. Director of
extradited are bailable in the United Prisons, in granting bail to a prospective
States is not an argument to grant him deportee, held that under the Constitution
one in the present case. To stress, the principles set forth in the Universal
extradition proceedings are separate and Declaration of Human Rights are part of
distinct from the trial for the offenses for the law of the land. If bail can be granted
which he is charged. He should apply for in deportation cases, considering that the
bail before the courts trying the criminal Universal Declaration of Human Rights
cases against him, not before the applies to deportation cases, there is no
extradition court. Accordingly, it was held reason why it cannot be invoked in
that after a potential extraditee has been extradition cases.
arrested and placed under the custody of
the law, bail may be applied for and i) Consistent with the separate opinion of
granted as an exception, only upon a clear Chief Justice Puno in Puruganan, a new
and convincing showing that standard, “clear and convincing
evidence”, should be used in granting
(a) once granted bail, the applicant will bail in extradition cases. The standard is

Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
lower than proof beyond reasonable 2. Whether the offense is extraditable.

doubt, but higher than preponderance of
evidence. The potential extradite must Q: How about in applying for bail in
prove by “clear and convincing evidence” deprtation proceedings and
that he is not a flight risk and will abide quarantine, what are the 2 factors to
with all the orders and processes of the be considered?
extradition court.
ANS – (1) Risk of flight and, (2) Under
compelling reasons and Humanitarian
GABBY RECIT: reasons.
Q: DISCUSS THE BAIL IN EXTRADITION

PROCEEDINGS. Government of the U.S. vs. Judge
ANS – Under Section 13 of Article III, Puruganan [G.R. No. 148571,
extradites are not entitled to bail because September 24, 2002; December 17,
the provision applies only to criminal 2002]
proceedings.
FIVE POSTULATES OF EXTRADITION.
Q: What are the five (5) postulates in The substantive issues raised in this case
extradition proceedings? require an interpretation or construction
ANS - of the treaty and the law on extradition. A
1. Extradition is a major instrument cardinal rule in the interpretation of a
for the suppression of crime. treaty or a law is to ascertain and give
2. The requesting state will accord effect to its intent. Since PD 1069 is
due process to the accused. intended as a guide for the
3. Proceedings are sui generis. implementation of extradition treaties to
4. Compliance shall be in good faith. which the Philippines is a signatory,
5. There is an underlying risk of flight. understanding certain postulates of
extradition will aid us in properly
- In the case of US vs. Puruganan, deciding the issues raised here.
extradition court is not called upon
to ascertain the guilt or innocence 1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for
of the person sought to be the Suppression of Crime.
extradited. First, extradition treaties are entered into
for the purpose of suppressing crime by
Q: What are the two (2) issues in facilitating the arrest and the custodial
extradition court? transfer of a fugitive from one state to the
ANS – other. With the advent of easier and faster
1. Whether it was filed in accordance means of international travel, the flight of
with extradition treaty
Page | 23
MENDIOLA, MANILA
affluent criminals from one country to encouragement and thus indirectly does
another for the purpose of committing the commission of crime itself.”
crime and evading prosecution has
become more frequent. Accordingly, In Secretary v. Lantion we explained:
governments are adjusting their methods
of dealing with criminals and crimes that “The Philippines also has a national
transcend international boundaries. interest to help in suppressing crimes and
one way to do it is to facilitate the
Today, “a majority of nations in the world extradition of persons covered by treaties
community have come to look upon duly entered [into] by our government.
extradition as the major effective More and more, crimes are becoming the
instrument of international co-operation concern of one world. Laws involving
in the suppression of crime.” It is the only crimes and crime prevention are
regular system that has been devised to undergoing universalization. One
return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a manifest purpose of this trend towards
court competent to try them in globalization is to deny easy refuge to a
accordance with municipal and criminal whose activities threaten the
international law. peace and progress of civilized countries.
It is to the great interest of the Philippines
“An important practical effect x x x of the to be part of this irreversible movement
recognition of the principle that criminals in light of its vulnerability to crimes,
should be restored to a jurisdiction especially transnational crimes.”
competent to try and punish them is that
the number of criminals seeking refuge Indeed, in this era of globalization, easier
abroad will be reduced. For to the extent and faster international travel, and an
that efficient means of detection and the expanding ring of international crimes
threat of punishment play a significant and criminals, we cannot afford to be an
role in the deterrence of crime within the isolationist state. We need to cooperate
territorial limits of a State, so the with other states in order to improve our
existence of effective extradition chances of suppressing crime in our own
arrangements and the consequent country.
certainty of return to the locus delicti
commissi play a corresponding role in the 2. The Requesting State Will Accord
deterrence of flight abroad in order to Due Process to the Accused
escape the consequence of crime. x x x. Second, an extradition treaty presupposes
From an absence of extradition that both parties thereto have examined,
arrangements flight abroad by the and that both accept and trust, each
ingenious criminal receives direct other’s legal system and judicial process.
More pointedly, our duly authorized

Page | 24
MENDIOLA, MANILA
representative’s signature on an “There are other differences between an

extradition treaty signifies our confidence extradition proceeding and a criminal
in the capacity and the willingness of the proceeding. An extradition proceeding is
other state to protect the basic rights of summary in nature while criminal
the person sought to be extradited. That proceedings involve a full-blown trial. In
signature signifies our full faith that the contradistinction to a criminal proceeding,
accused will be given, upon extradition to the rules of evidence in an extradition
the requesting state, all relevant and basic proceeding allow admission of evidence
rights in the criminal proceedings that under less stringent standards. In terms
will take place therein; otherwise, the of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied,
treaty would not have been signed, or a criminal case requires proof beyond
would have been directly attacked for its reasonable doubt for conviction while a
unconstitutionality. fugitive may be ordered extradited ‘upon
showing of the existence of a prima facie
3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis case.’ Finally, unlike in a criminal case
Third, as pointed out in Secretary of where judgment becomes executory upon
Justice v. Lantion, extradition proceedings being rendered final, in an extradition
are not criminal in nature. In criminal proceeding, our courts may adjudge an
proceedings, the constitutional rights of individual extraditable but the President
the accused are at fore; in extradition has the final discretion to extradite him.
which is sui generis -- in a class by itself – The United States adheres to a similar
they are not. practice whereby the Secretary of State
exercises wide discretion in balancing the
“An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. equities of the case and the demands of
It is not a criminal proceeding which will the nation’s foreign relations before
call into operation all the rights of an making the ultimate decision to extradite.”
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. To begin with, the process of Given the foregoing, it is evident that the
extradition does not involve the extradition court is not called upon to
determination of the guilt or innocence of ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the
an accused. person sought to be extradited. Such
determination during the extradition
His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in proceedings will only result in needless
the court of the state where he will be duplication and delay. Extradition is
extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional merely a measure of international judicial
rights that are only relevant to determine assistance through which a person
the guilt or innocence of an accused charged with or convicted of a crime is
cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x. restored to a jurisdiction with the best
claim to try that person. It is not part of

Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the function of the assisting authorities to delivery of the accused on the issue of the
enter into questions that are the proper warrant, and the other
prerogative of that jurisdiction. The government is under obligation to make
ultimate purpose of extradition the surrender.” Accordingly, the
proceedings in court is only to determine Philippines must be ready and in a
whether the extradition request complies position to deliver the accused, should it
with the Extradition Treaty, and whether be found proper.
the person sought is extraditable.
5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. Fifth, persons to be extradited are
Fourth, our executive branch of presumed to be flight risks. This prima
government voluntarily entered into the facie presumption finds reinforcement in
Extradition Treaty, and our legislative the experience of the executive branch:
branch ratified it. Hence, the Treaty nothing short of confinement can ensure
carries the presumption that its that the accused will not flee the
implementation will serve the national jurisdiction of the requested state in
interest. order to thwart their extradition to the
requesting state.
Fulfilling our obligations under the
Extradition Treaty promotes comity with The present extradition case further
the requesting state. On the other hand, validates the premise that persons sought
failure to fulfill our obligations to be extradited have a propensity to flee.
thereunder paints a bad image of our Indeed, extradition hearings would not
country before the world community. even begin, if only the accused were
Such failure would discourage other willing to submit to trial in the requesting
states from entering into treaties with us, country. Prior acts of herein respondent –
particularly an extradition treaty that (1) leaving the requesting state right
hinges on reciprocity. before the conclusion of his indictment
proceedings there; and
Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt (2) remaining in the requested state
servanda to comply in good faith with our despite learning that the requesting state
obligations under the Treaty. This is seeking his return and that the crimes
principle requires that we deliver the he is charged with are bailable --
accused to the requesting country if the eloquently speak of his aversion to the
conditions precedent to extradition, as set processes in the requesting state, as well
forth in the Treaty, are satisfied. In other as his predisposition to avoid them at all
words, “[t]he demanding government, cost.
when it has done all that the treaty and
the law require it to do, is entitled to the

Page | 26
MENDIOLA, MANILA
These circumstances point to an ever- noted that the suspension of the privilege
present, underlying high risk of flight. He of the writ of habeas corpus finds
has demonstrated that he has the capacity application “only to persons judicially
and the will to flee. Having fled once, what charged for rebellion or offenses inherent
is there to stop him, given sufficient in or directly connected with invasion.”
opportunity, from fleeing a second time? Hence, the second sentence in the
constitutional provision on bail merely
THE RIGHT TO BAIL DOES NOT APPLY emphasizes the right to bail in criminal
IN EXTRADITION CASES. We agree with proceedings for the aforementioned
petitioner. As suggested by the use of the offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that
word “conviction,” the constitutional the right is available even in extradition
provision on bail quoted above, as well as proceedings that are not criminal in
Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, nature.
applies only when a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of That the offenses for which Jimenez is
Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply sought to be extradited are bailable in the
to extradition proceedings, because United States is not an argument to grant
extradition courts do not render him one in the present case. To stress,
judgments of conviction or acquittal. extradition proceedings are separate and
distinct from the trial for the offenses for
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail which he is charged. He should apply for
“flows from the presumption of innocence bail before the courts trying the criminal
in favor of every accused who should not cases against him, not before the
be subjected to the loss of freedom as extradition court.
thereafter he would be entitled to
acquittal, unless his guilt be proved EXCEPTIONS IN THE NON-
beyond reasonable doubt.” It follows that APPLICABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL
the constitutional provision on bail will ON EXTRADITION CASES. The rule, we
not apply to a case like extradition, where repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right
the presumption of innocence is not at in extradition cases. However, the
issue. judiciary has the constitutional duty to
curb grave abuse of discretion and
The provision in the Constitution stating tyranny, as well as the power to
that the “right to bail shall not be promulgate rules to protect and enforce
impaired even when the privilege of the constitutional rights. Furthermore, we
writ of habeas corpus is suspended” does believe that the right to due process is
not detract from the rule that the broad enough to include the grant of basic
constitutional right to bail is available fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right
only in criminal proceedings. It must be to due process extends to the “life, liberty

Page | 27
MENDIOLA, MANILA
or property” of every person. It is that the vital international and bilateral

“dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every interests of our country will not be
situation calling for its application.” unreasonably impeded or compromised.
In short, while this Court is ever
Accordingly and to best serve the ends of protective of “the sporting idea of fair
justice, we believe and so hold that, after a play,” it also recognizes the limits of its
potential extraditee has been arrested or own prerogatives and the need to fulfill
placed under the custody of the law, bail international obligations.
may be applied for and granted as an
exception, only upon a clear and
convincing showing GOVT OF USA VS PURUGANAN G.R. No.
148571. September 24, 2002
(1) that, once granted bail, the applicant
will not be a flight risk or a danger to the Facts:This Petition is really a sequel to GR
community; and No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v.
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian Ralph C. Lantion where the court held
and compelling circumstances including, that Jimenez was bereft of the right to
as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by notice and hearing during the evaluation
the highest court in the requesting state stage of the extradition process.
when it grants provisional liberty in
extradition cases therein. Finding no more legal obstacle, the
Government of the United States of
Since this exception has no express or America, represented by the Philippine
specific statutory basis, and since it is DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May 2001,
derived essentially from general the appropriate Petition for Extradition
principles of justice and fairness, the which was docketed as Extradition Case
applicant bears the burden of proving the 01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia,
above two-tiered requirement with that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest
clarity, precision and emphatic warrant issued by the United States
forcefulness. The Court realizes that District Court for the Southern District of
extradition is basically an executive, not a Florida on 15 April 1999.
judicial, responsibility arising from the
presidential power to conduct foreign Before the RTC could act on the Petition,
relations. In its barest concept, it partakes Jimenez filed before it an “Urgent
of the nature of police assistance amongst Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,” which
states, which is not normally a judicial prayed that Jimenez’s application for an
prerogative. Hence, any intrusion by the arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its 23
courts into the exercise of this power May 2001 Order, the RTC granted the
should be characterized by caution, so Motion of Jimenez and set the case for

Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
hearing on 5 June 2001. In that hearing, To determine probable cause for the
Jimenez manifested its reservations on issuance of arrest warrants, the
the procedure adopted by the trial court Constitution itself requires only the
allowing the accused in an extradition examination — under oath or affirmation
case to be heard prior to the issuance of a — of complainants and the witnesses they
warrant of arrest. may produce. There is no requirement to
notify and hear the accused before the
After the hearing, the court a quo issuance of warrants of arrest.
required the parties to submit their
respective memoranda. In his At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of
Memorandum, Jimenez sought an evidence on record, judges merely further
alternative prayer: that in case a warrant examine complainants and their witnesses.
should issue, he be allowed to post bail in In the present case, validating the act of
the amount of P100,000. respondent judge and instituting the
practice of hearing the accused and his
The alternative prayer of Jimenez was witnesses at this early stage would be
also set for hearing on 15 June 2001. discordant with the rationale for the
Thereafter, the court below issued its 3 entire system. If the accused were
July 2001 Order, directing the issuance of allowed to be heard and necessarily to
warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for present evidence during the prima
his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash. facie determination for the issuance of a
After he had surrendered his passport warrant of arrest, what would stop him
and posted the required cash bond, from presenting his entire plethora of
Jimenez was granted provisional liberty defenses at this stage — if he so desires
via the challenged Order dated 4 July — in his effort to negate a prima facie
2001. Hence, this petition. finding? Such a procedure could convert
the determination of a prima facie case
Issues: 1.Whether Jimenez is entitled to into a full-blown trial of the entire
notice and hearing before a warrant for proceedings and possibly make trial of
his arrest can be issued the main case superfluous. This scenario
is also anathema to the summary nature
2. Whether he is entitled to bail and of extraditions.
to provisional liberty while the
extradition proceedings are ***Upon receipt of a petition for
pending extradition and its supporting documents,
the judge must study them and make, as
Held: soon as possible, a prima facie
finding whether (a) they are sufficient in
1. No. form and substance, (b) they show

Page | 29
MENDIOLA, MANILA
compliance with the Extradition Treaty not apply to a case like extradition, where
and Law, and (c) the person sought is the presumption of innocence is not at
extraditable. At his discretion, the judge issue.
may require the submission of further
documentation or may personally Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign
examine the affiants and witnesses of the case Parettiin arguing that,
petitioner. If, in spite of this study and constitutionally,
examination, no prima facie finding is “[n]o one shall be deprived of x x x
possible, the petition may be dismissed at liberty x x x without due process of law.”
the discretion of the judge.
Contrary to his contention, his detention
On the other hand, if the presence of a prior to the conclusion of the extradition
prima facie case is determined, then the proceedings does not amount to a
magistrate must immediately issue a violation of his right to due process. We
warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, iterate the familiar doctrine that the
who is at the same time summoned to essence of due process is the opportunity
answer the petition and to appear at to be heard but, at the same time, point
scheduled summary hearings. Prior to out that the doctrine does not always call
the issuance of the warrant, the judge for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where
must not inform or notify the potential the circumstances — such as those
extraditee of the pendency of the petition, present in an extradition case — call for
lest the latter be given the opportunity to it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is
escape and frustrate the proceedings. In enough. In the present case, respondent
our opinion, the foregoing procedure will will be given full opportunity to be heard
“best serve the ends of justice” in subsequently, when the extradition court
extradition cases.*** hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence,
there is no violation of his right to due
2. No. process and fundamental fairness.
Extradition cases are different from

ordinary criminal proceedings. The
constitutional right to bail “flows from the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
presumption of innocence in favor of VS PURUGANAN
every accused who should not be
subjected to the loss of freedom as Lessons: Extradition Process, Bail on
thereafter he would be entitled to Extradition, Right of Due Process and
acquittal, unless his guilt be proved Fundamental Fairness in Extradition
beyond reasonable doubt.”It follows that
the constitutional provision on bail will
Laws: Bill of Rights, PD 1069, US-Phil

Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Extradition Treaty provisional liberty.
FACTS: Government of the USA filed a petition

for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
Petition is a sequel to the case “Sec. of of Court to set aside the order for the
Justice v. Hon. Lantion”. The Secretary issuance of a warrant for his arrest and
was ordered to furnish Mr. Jimenez copies fixing bail for his temporary liberty at
of the extradition request and its P1M in cash which the court deems best
supporting papers and to grant the latter to take cognizance as there is still no local
a reasonable period within which to file a jurisprudence to guide lower court.
comment and supporting evidence. But,
on motion for reconsideration by the Sec. ISSUES:
of Justice, it reversed its decision but held i. Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan acted
that the Mr. Jimenez was bereft of the without or in excess of jurisdiction or
right to notice and hearing during the with grave abuse of discretion amounting
evaluation stage of the extradition to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
process. On May 18, 2001, the adopting a procedure of first hearing a
Government of the USA, represented by potential extraditee before issuing an
the Philippine Department of Justice, filed arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No.
with the RTC, the Petition for Extradition 1069
praying for the issuance of an order for
his “immediate arrest” pursuant to Sec. 6
of PD 1069 in order to prevent the flight ii. Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan acted
of Jimenez. Before the RTC could act on without or in excess of jurisdiction or
the petition, Mr. Jimenez filed before it an with grave abuse of discretion amounting
“Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion” to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
praying for his application for an arrest granting the prayer for bail
warrant be set for hearing. After the
hearing, as required by the court, Mr. iii. Whether or NOT there is a violation
Jimenez submitted his of due process
Memorandum. Therein seeking an
alternative prayer that in case a warrant HELD: Petition is GRANTED. Bail bond
should issue, he be allowed to post bail in
posted is CANCELLED. Regional Trial
the amount of P100,000. The court Court of
ordered the issuance of a warrant for his Manila is directed to conduct the
arrest and fixing bail for his temporary extradition proceedings before it.
liberty at P1M in cash. After he had
surrendered his passport and posted the i. YES.
required cash bond, Jimenez was granted

Page | 31
MENDIOLA, MANILA
By using the phrase “if it appears,” the law the issuance of arrest warrants, the
further conveys that accuracy is not as Constitution itself requires only the
important as speed at such early examination under oath or affirmation of
stage. From the knowledge and the complainants and the witnesses they may
material then available to it, the court is produce.
expected merely to get a good first
impression or a prima facie finding The Proper Procedure to “Best Serve The
sufficient to make a speedy initial Ends Of Justice” In Extradition Cases
determination as regards the arrest and Upon receipt of a petition for
detention of the accused. The prima facie extradition and its supporting documents,
existence of probable cause for hearing the judge must study them and make, as
the petition and, a priori, for issuing an soon as possible, a prima facie finding
arrest warrant was already evident from whether
the Petition itself and its supporting a) they are sufficient in form and
documents. Hence, after having already substance
determined therefrom that a prima facie b) they show compliance with the
finding did exist, respondent judge Extradition Treaty and Law
gravely abused his discretion when he set c) the person sought is extraditable
the matter for hearing upon motion of
Jimenez. The silence of the Law and the At his discretion, the judge may require
Treaty leans to the more reasonable the submission of further documentation
interpretation that there is no intention to or may personally examine the affiants
punctuate with a hearing every little step and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite
in the entire proceedings. It also bears of this study and examination, no prima
emphasizing at this point that extradition facie finding is possible, the petition may
proceedings are summary in be dismissed at the discretion of the
nature. Sending to persons sought to be judge. On the other hand, if the presence
extradited a notice of the request for their of a prima facie case is determined, then
arrest and setting it for hearing at some the magistrate must immediately issue a
future date would give them ample warrant for the arrest of the extraditee,
opportunity to prepare and execute an who is at the same time summoned to
escape which neither the Treaty nor the answer the petition and to appear at
Law could have intended. scheduled summary hearings. Prior to
the issuance of the warrant, the judge
Even Section 2 of Article III of our must not inform or notify the potential
Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez, extraditee of the pendency of the petition,
does not require a notice or a hearing lest the latter be given the opportunity to
before the issuance of a warrant of escape and frustrate the proceedings.
arrest. To determine probable cause for

Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ii. Yes.
Exceptions to the “No Bail” Rule
The constitutional provision on bail on Bail is not a matter of right in
Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, extradition cases. It is subject to judicial
as well discretion in the context of the peculiar
as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of facts of each case. Bail may be applied for
Court, applies only when a person has and granted as an exception, only upon a
been arrested and detained for violation clear and convincing showing
of Philippine criminal laws. It does not
apply to extradition proceedings, because
extradition courts do not render 1) that, once granted bail, the applicant
judgments of conviction or will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
acquittal. Moreover, the constitutional community; and
right to bail “flows from the presumption 2) that there exist special, humanitarian
of innocence in favor of every accused and compelling circumstances including,
who should not be subjected to the loss of as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by
freedom as thereafter he would be the highest court in the requesting state
entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be when it grants provisional liberty in
proved beyond reasonable doubt. In extradition cases therein
extradition, the presumption of innocence
is not at issue. The provision in the Since this exception has no express or
Constitution stating that the “right to bail specific statutory basis, and since it is
shall not be impaired even when the derived essentially from general
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is principles of justice and fairness, the
suspended” finds application “only to applicant bears the burden of proving the
persons judicially charged for rebellion or above two-tiered requirement with
offenses inherent in or directly connected clarity, precision and emphatic
with invasion.” forcefulness.
That the offenses for which Jimenez is It must be noted that even before
sought to be extradited are bailable in the private respondent ran for and won a
United States is not an argument to grant congressional seat in Manila, it was
him one in the present case. Extradition already of public knowledge that the
proceedings are separate and distinct United States was requesting his
from the trial for the offenses for which extradition. Therefore, his constituents
he is charged. He should apply for bail were or should have been prepared for
before the courts trying the criminal cases the consequences of the extradition
against him, not before the extradition case. Thus, the court ruled against his
court. claim that his election to public office is
by itself a compelling reason to grant him
Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
bail. compatible with the summary nature of

extradition.
Giving premium to delay by considering
it as a special circumstance for the grant It is also worth noting that before the
of bail would be tantamount to giving him US government requested the extradition
the power to grant bail to himself. It of respondent, proceedings had already
would also encourage him to stretch out been conducted in that country. He
and unreasonably delay the extradition already had that opportunity in the
proceedings even more. Extradition requesting state; yet, instead of taking it,
proceedings should be conducted with all he ran away.
deliberate speed to determine compliance
with the Extradition Treaty and Law; and, Other Doctrines:
while safeguarding basic individual rights,
to avoid the legalistic contortions, delays Five Postulates of Extradition
and technicalities that may negate that 1) Extradition Is a Major Instrument for
purpose. the Suppression of Crime
That he has not yet fled from the In this era of globalization, easier and
Philippines cannot be taken to mean that faster international travel, and an
he will stand his ground and still be expanding ring of
within reach of our government if and international crimes and criminals, we
when it matters; that is, upon the cannot afford to be an isolationist
resolution of the Petition for Extradition. state. We need to cooperate with other
states in order to improve our chances of
iii. NO. suppressing crime in our own country.
Potential extraditees are entitled to the 2) The Requesting State Will Accord Due
rights to due process and to fundamental Process to the Accused
fairness. The doctrine of right to due
process and fundamental fairness does By entering into an extradition treaty, the
not always call for a prior opportunity to Philippines is deemed to have reposed its
be heard. A subsequent opportunity to trust
be heard is enough. He will be given full in the reliability or soundness of the legal
opportunity to be heard subsequently, and judicial system of its treaty partner,
when the extradition court hears the as well as in the ability and the
Petition for Extradition. Indeed, available willingness of the latter to grant basic
during the hearings on the petition and rights to the accused in the pending
the answer is the full chance to be heard criminal case therein.
and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is

Page | 34
MENDIOLA, MANILA
3) The Proceedings Are Sui Generis 4) Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.
An extradition proceeding is sui generis: We are bound by pacta sunt servanda to

a) It is not a criminal proceeding which comply in good faith with our obligations
will call into operation all the rights of an under the Treaty. Accordingly, the
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Philippines must be ready and in a
Rights. It does not involve the position to deliver the
determination of the guilt or innocence of accused, should it be found proper
an accused. His guilt or innocence will be
adjudged in the court of the state where 5) There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
he will be extradited. Indeed, extradition hearings would not
b) An extradition proceeding is even begin, if only the accused were
summary in nature while criminal willing to submit to trial in the requesting
proceedings involve a full-blown trial. country. Prior acts of herein respondent:
c) In terms of the quantum of evidence
to be satisfied, a criminal case requires
proof “beyond reasonable doubt” for a) leaving the requesting state right
conviction while a fugitive may be before the conclusion of his indictment
ordered extradited “upon showing of the proceedings there; and
existence of a prima facie case” b) remaining in the requested state
d) Unlike in a criminal case where despite learning that the requesting state
judgment becomes executory upon being is seeking his return and that the crimes
rendered final, in an extradition he is charged with are bailable
proceeding, our courts may adjudge an
individual extraditable but the President Extradition is Essentially Executive
has the final discretion to extradite him. Extradition is essentially an executive, not
a judicial, responsibility arising out of the
Extradition is merely a measure of presidential power to conduct foreign
international judicial assistance through relations and to implement treaties. Thus,
which a person charged with or convicted the Executive Department of government
of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction has broad discretion in its duty and
with the best claim to try that power of implementation.
person. The ultimate purpose of
extradition proceedings in court is only to - If the case is not a criminal proceeding,
determine whether the extradition the application for bail is based on due
request complies with the Extradition process and a clear and convincing
Treaty, and whether the person sought is evidence is needed (case of judge olalia)
extraditable.

Page | 35
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Government of Hong Kong vs. Hon. Declaration are now recognized as

Olalia [G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007] customarily binding upon the members of
the international community.
EXCEPTIONS IN THE GENERAL RULE.
The modern trend in public international Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, this
law is the primacy placed on the worth of Court, in granting bail to a prospective
the individual person and the sanctity of deportee, held that under the Constitution,
human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the principles set forth in that Declaration
the individual person may properly be a are part of the law of the land. In 1966,
subject of international law is now taking the UN General Assembly also adopted
root. The vulnerable doctrine that the the International Covenant on Civil and
subjects of international law are limited Political Rights which the Philippines
only to states was dramatically eroded signed and ratified. Fundamental among
towards the second half of the past the rights enshrined therein are the rights
century. For one, the Nuremberg and of every person to life, liberty, and due
Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in process.
the unprecedented spectacle of individual
defendants for acts characterized as The Philippines, along with the other
violations of the laws of war, crimes members of the family of nations,
against peace, and crimes against committed to uphold the fundamental
humanity. human rights as well as value the worth
and dignity of every person. This
Recently, under the Nuremberg principle, commitment is enshrined in Section II,
Serbian leaders have been persecuted for Article II of our Constitution which
war crimes and crimes against humanity provides: “The State values the dignity of
committed in the former Yugoslavia. every human person and guarantees full
These significant events show that the respect for human rights.” The Philippines,
individual person is now a valid subject of therefore, has the responsibility of
international law. On a more positive note, protecting and promoting the right of
also after World War II, both international every person to liberty and due process,
organizations and states gave recognition ensuring that those detained or arrested
and importance to human rights. Thus, on can participate in the proceedings before
December 10, 1948, the United Nations a court, to enable it to decide without
General Assembly adopted the Universal delay on the legality of the detention and
Declaration of Human Rights in which the order their release if justified. In other
right to life, liberty and all the other words, the Philippine authorities are
fundamental rights of every person were under obligation to make available to
proclaimed. While not a treaty, the every person under detention such
principles contained in the said remedies which safeguard their

Page | 36
MENDIOLA, MANILA
fundamental right to liberty. These granted bail pending his appeal. After
remedies include the right to be admitted noting that the prospective deportee had
to bail. While this Court in Purganan committed no crime, the Court opined
limited the that “To refuse him bail is to treat him as
exercise of the right to bail to criminal a person who has committed the most
proceedings, however, in light of the serious crime known to law;” and that
various international treaties giving while deportation is not a criminal
recognition and protection to human proceeding, some of the machinery used
rights, particularly the right to life and “is the machinery of criminal law.” Thus,
liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s the provisions relating to bail was applied
ruling in Purganan is in order. to deportation proceedings.
First, we note that the exercise of the In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons and
State’s power to deprive an individual of Chirskoff v. Commission of Immigration,
his liberty is not necessarily limited to this Court ruled that foreign nationals
criminal proceedings. Respondents in against whom no formal criminal charges
administrative proceedings, such as have been filed may be released on bail
deportation and quarantine, have pending the finality of an order of
likewise been detained. deportation. As previously stated, the
Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal
Second, to limit bail to criminal declaration of Human Rights in sustaining
proceedings would be to close our eyes to the detainee’s right to bail. If bail can be
our jurisprudential history. Philippine granted in deportation cases, we see no
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise justification why it should not also be
of the right to bail to criminal proceedings allowed in extradition cases. Likewise,
only. This Court has admitted to bail considering that the Universal
persons who are not involved in criminal Declaration of Human Rights applies to
proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed deportation cases, there is no reason why
in this jurisdiction to persons in detention it cannot be invoked in extradition cases.
during the pendency of administrative After all, both are administrative
proceedings, taking into cognizance the proceedings where the innocence or guilt
obligation of the Philippines under of the person detained is not in issue.
international conventions to uphold
human rights. Clearly, the right of a prospective
extraditee to apply for bail in this
The 1909 case of US v. Go-Sioco is jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of
illustrative. In this case, a Chinese facing the various treaty obligations of the
deportation for failure to secure the Philippines concerning respect for the
necessary certificate of registration was promotion and protection of human

Page | 37
MENDIOLA, MANILA
rights. Under these treaties, the return to the state from which he fled, for
presumption lies in favor of human the purpose of trial or punishment.
liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see
to it that the right to liberty of every But while extradition is not a criminal
individual is not impaired. Section 2(a) of proceeding, it is characterized by the
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The following:
Philippine Extradition Law) defines
“extradition” as “the removal of an (a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on
accused from the Philippines with the the part of the potential extraditee and
object of placing him at the disposal of (b) the means employed to attain the
foreign authorities to enable the purpose of extradition is also “the
requesting state or government to hold machinery of criminal law.” This is shown
him in connection with any criminal by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The
investigation directed against him or the Philippine Extradition Law) which
execution of a penalty imposed on him mandates the “immediate arrest and
under the penal or criminal law of the temporary detention of the accused” if
requesting state or government.” such “will best serve the interest of
justice.”
Extradition has thus been characterized
as the right of a foreign power, created by We further note that Section 20 allows the
treaty, to demand the surrender of one requesting state “in case of urgency” to
accused or convicted of a crime within its ask for the “provisional arrest of the
territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative accused, pending receipt of the request
duty of the other state to surrender him for extradition;” and that release from
to the demanding state. It is not a criminal provisional arrest “shall not prejudice re-
proceeding. Even if the potential arrest and extradition of the accused if a
extraditee is a criminal, an extradition request for extradition is received
proceeding is not by its nature criminal, subsequently.”
for it is not punishment for a crime, even
though such punishment may follow Obviously, an extradition proceeding,
extradition. It is sui generis, tracing its while ostensibly administrative, bears all
existence wholly to treaty obligations earmarks of a criminal process. A
between different nations. It is not a trial potential extraditee may be subjected to
to determine the guilt or innocence of the arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty,
potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown and forced to transfer to the demanding
civil action, but one that is merely state following the proceedings.
administrative in character. Its object is to “Temporary detention” may be a
prevent the escape of a person accused or necessary step in the process of
convicted of a crime and to secure his

Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
extradition, but the length of time of the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus
detention should be reasonable. bears the onus probandi of showing that
he or she is not a flight risk and should be
Records show that private respondent granted bail.
was arrested on September 23, 1999, and
remained incarcerated until December 20, The time-honored principle of pacta sunt
2001, when the trial court ordered his servanda demands that the Philippines
admission to bail. In other words, he had honor its obligations under the
been detained for over two (2) years Extradition Treaty it entered into with the
without having been convicted of any Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
crime. By any standard, such an extended Failure to comply with these obligations
period of detention is a serious is a setback in our foreign relations and
deprivation of his fundamental right to defeats the purpose of extradition.
liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged However, it does not necessarily mean
deprivation of liberty which prompted the that in keeping with its treaty obligations,
extradition court to grant him bail. the Philippines should diminish a
potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty,
While our extradition law does not and due process.
provide for the grant of bail to an
extraditee, however, there is no provision More so, where these rights are
prohibiting him or her from filing a guaranteed, not only by our Constitution,
motion for bail, a right to due process but also by international conventions, to
under the Constitution. The applicable which the Philippines is a party. We
standard of due process, however, should should not, therefore, deprive an
not be the same as that in criminal extraditee of his right to apply for bail,
proceedings. In the latter, the standard of provided that a certain standard for the
due process is premised on the grant is satisfactorily met. An extradition
presumption of innocence of the accused. proceeding being sui generis, the
As Purganan correctly points out, it is standard of proof required in granting or
from this major premise that the ancillary denying bail can neither be the proof
presumption in favor of admitting to bail beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
arises. Bearing in mind the purpose of cases nor the standard of proof of
extradition proceedings, the premise preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
behind the issuance of the arrest warrant
and the “temporary detention” is the While administrative in character, the
possibility of flight of the potential standard of substantial evidence used in
extraditee. This is based on the administrative cases cannot likewise
assumption that such extraditee is a apply given the object of extradition law
fugitive from justice.14[15] Given the which is to prevent the prospective

Page | 39
MENDIOLA, MANILA
extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In the provisional arrest of respondent

his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Muñoz; the DOJ forward the request to
Associate Justice, now Chief Justice the NBI then to RTC. On the same day, NBI
Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new agents arrested him.
standard which he termed “clear and
convincing evidence” should be used in Respondent filed with the CA a petition
granting bail in extradition cases. for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
According to him, this standard should be with application for preliminary
lower than proof beyond reasonable mandatory injunction and writ of habeas
doubt but higher than preponderance of corpus questioning the validity of the
evidence. The potential extraditee must order of arrest.
prove by “clear and convincing evidence”
that he is not a flight risk and will abide The CA declared the arrest void. Hence
with all the orders and processes of the this petition by the Hongkong
extradition court. Department of Justice thru DOJ.
Bail, Section 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules DOJ filed a petition for certiorari in this
of Criminal Procedure - is the surety for Court and sustained the validity of the
the release of a person in custody of the arrest.
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to
guarantee his appearance before any Hongkong Administrative Region then
court as required under the conditions filed in the RTC petition for extradition
hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in and arrest of respondent. Meanwhile,
the form of corporate surety, property respondent filed a petition for bail, which
bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. was opposed by the petitioner, initially
the RTC denied the petition holding that
there is no Philippine Law granting bail in
GOV’T OF HONGKONG SPECIAL extradition cases and that private
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION VS HON. responded is a “flight risk”.
OLALIA
Motion for reconsideration was filed by
Extradition: the respondent, which was granted.
FACTS: Hence this petition.
Respondent Muñoz was charged of 3
counts of offences of “accepting an ISSUE:
advantage as agent”, and 7 counts of Whether or not right to bail can be avail in
conspiracy to defraud, punishable by the extradition cases.
common law of Hongkong. The Hongkong
Depoartment of Justice requested DOJ for HELD:

Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In Purganan case, the right to bail was not

included in the extradition cases, since it Examination of this Court in the doctrines
is available only in criminal proceedings. provided for in the US Vs Purganan
provide the following:
However the Supreme Court, recognised
the following trends in International Law. 1. The exercise of the State’s police power
to deprive a person of his liberty is not
 The growing importance of the limited to criminal proceedings.
individual person in publican 2. To limit the right to bail in the criminal
international law who, in the 20th proceeding would be to close our eyes to
century attained global recognition. jurisprudential history. Philippines has
 The higher value now being given in not limited the exercise of the right to bail
human rights in international sphere to criminal proceedings only. This Court
 The corresponding duty of countries has admitted to bail persons who are not
to observe these human rights in involved in criminal proceedings. In fact,
fulfilling their treaty obligations bail has been involved in this jurisdiction
 The of duty of this court to balance the to persons in detention during the
rights of the individual under our tendency of administrative proceedings,
fundamental law, on one hand, and the taking into cognisance the obligation of
law on extradition on the other. the Philippines under international
conventions to uphold human rights.
The modern trend in the public EXTRADITION, is defined as the removal

international law is the primacy placed of an accused from the Philippines with
on the sanctity of human rights. the object of placing him at the disposal of
foreign authorities to enable the
Enshrined the Constitution “The state requesting state or government to hold
values the dignity of every human him in connection with criminal
person and guarantees full respect for investigation directed against him or
human rights.” The Philippines execution of a penalty imposed on him
therefore, has the responsibility of under the penal and criminal law of the
protecting and promoting the right of requesting state or government. Thus
every person to liberty and due process, characterized as the right of the a foreign
ensuring that those detained or power, created by treaty to demand the
arrested can participate in the surrender of one accused or convicted of
proceeding before the a court, to enable a crimes within its territorial jurisdiction,
it to decide without delay on the legality and the correlative obligation of the other
of the detention and order their release state to surrender him to the demanding
if justified. state.

Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may

The extradited may be subject to be given in the form of corporate surety,
detention as may be necessary step in the property bond, cash deposit, or
process of extradition, but the length of recognizance.
time in the detention should be
reasonable. Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail;
requirements. – All kinds of bail are
In the case at bar, the record show that subject to the following conditions:
the respondent, Muñoz has been detained
for 2 years without being convicted in (a) The undertaking shall
Hongkong. be effective upon approval,
and unless cancelled, shall
The Philippines has the obligation of remain in force at all stages
ensuring the individual his right to liberty of the case until
and due process and should not therefor promulgation of the
deprive the extraditee of his right to bail judgment of the Regional
PROVIDED that certain standards for the Trial Court, irrespective of
grant is satisfactorily met. In other words whether the case was
there should be “CLEAR AND originally filed in or
CONVINCING EVIDENCE”. appealed to it;
However in the case at bar, the (b) The accused shall

respondent was not able to show and appear before the proper
clear and convincing evidence that he be court whenever required by
entitled to bail. Thus the case is remanded the court of these Rules;
in the court for the determination and
otherwise, should order the cancellation (c) The failure of the
of his bond and his immediate detention. accused to appear at the
trial without justification
and despite due notice shall
be deemed a waiver of his
right to be present thereat.
RULE 114 - BAIL In such case, the trial may
proceed in absentia; and
Section 1. Bail defined. – Bail is the (d) The bondsman shall

security given for the release of a person surrender the accused to
in custody of the law, furnished by him or the court for execution of
a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance the final judgment.
before any court as required under the

Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The original papers shall state the full However, if the decision of the trial court
name and address of the accused, the conviction the accused changed the
amount of the undertaking and the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
conditions required by this section. bailable, the application for bail can only
Photographs (passport size) taken within be filed with and resolved by the
the last six (6) months showing the face, appellate court.
left and right profiles of the accused must
be attached to the bail. Should the court grant the application,
the accused may be allowed to continue
Sec. 3. No release or transfer except on on provisional liberty during the
court order or bail. – No person under pendency of the appeal under the same
detention by legal process shall be bail subject to the consent of the
released or transferred except upon order bondsman.
of the court or when he is admitted to bail.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court
Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years,
exception. – All persons in custody shall the accused shall be denied bail, or his
be admitted to bail as a matter of right, bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by
with sufficient sureties, or released on the prosecution, with notice to the accuse,
recognizance as prescribed by law or this of the following or other similar
Rule (a) before or after conviction by the circumstances:
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or (a) That he is a recidivist,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) quasi-recidivist, or habitual
before conviction by the Regional Trial delinquent, or has
court of an offense not punishable by committed the crime
death, reclusion perpetua, or life aggravated by the
imprisonment. circumstance of reiteration;
Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. – (b) That he has previously

Upon conviction by the Regional Trial escaped from legal
Court of an offense not punishable by confinement, evaded
death, reclusion perpetua, or life sentence, or violated the
imprisonment, admission to bail is conditions of his bail
discretionary. The application for bail without valid justification;
may be filed and acted upon by the trial
court despite the filing of a notice of (c) That he committed the
appeal, provided it has not transmitted offense while under
the original record to the appellate court.

Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
probation, parole, or is in custody for the commission of an

conditional pardon; offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, the
(d) That the circumstances prosecution has the burden of showing
of his case indicate the that evidence of guilt is strong. The
probability of flight if evidence presented during the bail
released on bail; or hearing shall be considered automatically
reproduced at the trial but, upon motion
(e) That there is undue risk of either party, the court may recall any
that he may commit witness for additional examination unless
another crime during the the latter is dead, outside the Philippines,
pendency of the appeal. or otherwise unable to testify.
The appellate court may, motu proprio Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. –
or on motion of any party, review the The judge who issued the warrant or
resolution of the Regional Trial Court granted the application shall fix a
after notice to the adverse party in either reasonable amount of bail considering
case. primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:
Sec. 6. Capital offense defined. – A
capital offense is an offense which, under (a) Financial liability of the
the law existing at the time of its accused to give bail;
commission and of the application for
admission to bail, may be punished with (b) Nature and
death. circumstance of the offense;
Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense (c) Penalty for the offense

punishable by reclusion perpetua or life charged;
imprisonment, not bailable. – No person
charged with a capital offense, or an (d) Character and
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua reputation of the accused;
or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to
bail when evidence of guilt is strong, (e) Age and health of the
regardless of the state of the criminal accused;
prosecution.
(f) Weight of the evidence
Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail against the accused;
application. – At the hearing of an
application for bail filed by a person who

Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(g) Probability of the office of the provincial, city and municipal

accused appearing at the assessor concerned.
trial;
Within the same period, the accused
(h) Forfeiture of other bail; shall submit to the court his compliance
and his failure to do so shall be sufficient
(i) The fact that the accused cause for the cancellation of the property
was a fugitive from justice bond and his re-arrest and detention.
when arrested; and
Sec. 12. Qualifications of sureties in
(j) Pendency of other cases property bond. – The qualifications of
where the accused is on bail. sureties in a property bond shall be as
follows:
Excessive bail shall not be required.
(a) Each must be a resident
Sec. 10. Corporate surety. – Any owner of real estate within
domestic or foreign corporation, licensed the Philippines;
as a surety in accordance with law and
currently authorized to act as such, may (b) Where there is only one
provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly surety, his real estate must
by the accused and an officer of the be worth at least the
corporation duly authorized by its board amount of undertaking;
of directors.
(c) If there are two or more
Sec. 11. Property bond, how posted. – sureties, each may justify in
A property bond is an undertaking an amount less than that
constituted as lien on the real property expressed in the
given as security for the amount of the undertaking but the
bail. Within ten (10) days after the aggregate of the justified
approval of the bond, the accused shall sums must be equivalent to
cause the annotation of the lien on the the whole amount of the
certificate of title on file with the Registry bail demanded.
of Deeds if the land is registered, or if
unregistered, in the Registration Book on In all cases, every surety must be worth
the space provided therefore, in the the amount specified in his own
Registry of Deeds for the province or city undertaking over and above all just debts,
where the land lies, and on the obligations and properties exempt from
corresponding tax declaration in the execution.

Page | 45
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Sec. 13. Justification of sureties. – Sec. 16. Bail, when not required;
Every surety shall justify by affidavit reduced bail or recognizance. – No bail
taken before the judge that he possesses shall be required when the law or these
the qualification prescribed in the Rules so provide.
preceding section. He shall describe the
property given as security, stating the When a person has been in custody for a
nature of his title, its encumbrances, the period equal to or more than the possible
number and amount of other bails maximum imprisonment prescribed for
entered into by him and still the offense charged, he shall be released
undischarged, and his other liabilities. immediately, without prejudice to the
The court may examine the sureties upon continuation of the trial or the
oath concerning their sufficiency in such proceedings on appeal. If the maximum
manner as it may deem proper. No bail penalty to which the accused may be
shall be approved unless the surety is sentenced is destierro, he shall be
qualified. released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment.
Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. – The
accused or any person acting in his behalf A person in custody for a period equal to
may deposit in cash with the nearest or more than the minimum of the
collector of internal revenue or provincial, principal penalty prescribed for the
city, or municipal treasurer the amount of offense charged, without application of
bail fixed by the court, or recommended the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any
by the prosecutor who investigated or modifying circumstance, shall be released
filed the case. Upon submission of a on a reduced bail or on his own
proper certificate of deposit and a written recognizance, at the discretion of the
undertaking showing compliance with the court.
requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the
accused shall be discharged from custody. Sec. 17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in
The money deposited shall be considered the amount fixed may be filed with the
as bail and applied to the payment of fine court where the case is pending, or in the
and costs while the excess, if any, shall be absence or unavailability of the judge
returned to the accused or to whoever thereof, with any regional trial judge,
made the deposit. metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial
judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in
Sec. 15. Recognizance. – Whenever the province, city or municipality. If the
allowed by law or these Rules, the court accused is arrested in a province, city, or
may release a person in custody on his municipality other than where the case is
own recognizance or that of a responsible pending, bail may also be filed with any
person. regional trial court of said place, of if no

Page | 46
MENDIOLA, MANILA
judge thereof is available, with any After the accused is admitted to bail, the
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial court may, upon good cause, either
judge, or municipal circuit trial judge increase or reduce its amount. When
therein. increased, the accused may be committed
to custody if he does not give bail in the
(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of increased amount within a reasonable
discretion, or the accused seeks to be period. An accused held to answer a
released on recognizance, the application criminal charge, who is released without
may only be filed in the court where the bail upon filing of the complaint or
case is pending, whether on preliminary information, may, at any subsequent stage
investigation, trial, or appeal. of the proceedings and whenever a strong
showing of guilt appears to the court, be
Any person in custody who is not yet required to give bail in the amount fixed,
charged in court may apply for bail with or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.
any court in the province, city, or
municipality where he is held. Sec. 21. Forfeiture of bail. – When the
presence of the accused is required by the
Sec. 18. Notice of application to court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall
prosecutor. – In the application for bail be notified to produce him before the
under section 8 of this Rule, the court court on a given date and time. If the
must give reasonable notice of the accused fails to appear in person as
hearing to the prosecutor or require him required, his bail shall be declared
to submit his recommendation. forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty
(30) days within which to produce their
Sec. 19. Release on bail. – The accused principal and to show why no judgment
must be discharged upon approval of the should be rendered against them for the
bail by the judge with whom it was filed in amount of their bail. Within the said
accordance with section 17 of this Rule. period, the bondsmen must:
When bail is filed with a court other (a) produce the body of
than where the case is pending, the judge their principal or give the
who accepted the bail shall forward it, reason for his non-
together with the order of release and production; and
other supporting papers, to the court
where the case is pending, which may, for (b) explain why the accused
good reason, require a different one to be did not appear before the
filed. court when first required to
do so.
Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. –

Page | 47
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Failing in these two requisites, a exception. – No bail shall be allowed after

judgment shall be rendered against the a judgment of conviction has become final.
bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the If before such finality, the accused applies
amount of the bail. The court shall not for probation, he may be allowed
reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability temporary liberty under his bail. When no
of the bondsmen, unless the accused has bail was filed or the accused is incapable
been surrendered or is acquitted. of filing one, the court may allow his
release on recognizance to the custody of
Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail. – Upon a responsible member of the community.
application of the bondsmen, with due In no case shall bail be allowed after the
notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be accused has commenced to serve
cancelled upon surrender of the accused sentence.
or proof of his death.
Sec. 25. Court supervision of detainees.
The bail shall be deemed automatically – The court shall exercise supervision
cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, over all persons in custody for the
dismissal of the case, or execution of the purpose of eliminating unnecessary
judgment of conviction. detention. The executive judges of the
Regional Trial Courts shall conduct
In all instances, the cancellation shall be monthly personal inspections of
without prejudice to any liability on the provincial, city, and municipal jails and
bail. the prisoners within their respective
jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the
Sec. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. – number of detainees, inquire on their
For the purpose of surrendering the proper accommodation and health and
accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, examine the condition of the jail facilities.
upon written authority endorsed on a They shall order the segregation of sexes
certified copy of the undertaking, cause and of minors from adults, ensure the
him to be arrested by a police officer or observance of the right of detainees to
any other person of suitable age and confer privately with counsel, and strive
discretion. to eliminate conditions inimical to the
detainees.
An accused released on bail may be re-
arrested without the necessity of a In cities and municipalities to be
warrant if he attempts to depart from the specified by the Supreme Court, the
Philippines without permission of the municipal trial judges or municipal circuit
court where the case is pending. trial judges shall conduct monthly
personal inspections of the municipal jails
Sec. 24. No bail after final judgment; in their respective municipalities and

Page | 48
MENDIOLA, MANILA
submit a report to the executive judge of - SC has no constitutional basis and

the Regional Trial Court having it relied in an old case under the
jurisdiction therein. 1935 constitution.
A monthly report of such visitation shall

be submitted by the executive judges to
the Court Administrator which shall state
the total number of detainees, the names
of those held for more than thirty (30)
days, the duration of detention, the crime
charged, the status of the case, the cause
for detention, and other pertinent
information.
Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on

illegal arrest, lack of or irregular
preliminary investigation. – An
application for or admission to bail shall
not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the
warrant issued therefore, or from
assailing the regularity or questioning the
absence of a preliminary investigation of
the charge against him, provided that he
raises them before entering his plea. The
court shall resolve the matter as early as
practicable but not later than the start of
the trial of the case.
BONUS PACK:
In the recent case of Enrile wherein he

was allowed to post bail for humanitarian
reasons was made valid. But according to
Sir Gabriel, it must be revisited. (look on
the requisites).
- It was a pro hac vice

Page | 49

Sec 13 - Right To Bail - 11 - 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 13 - Right To Bail - 11 - 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 13 - Right To Bail - 11 - 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

26 SCRA 522], However, it is a basic

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Q: What are the kinds of bail?

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

appearance of the defendant at the time determination of whether or not the

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

It must be governed by rule, not by the judge is mandated to conduct a

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

to show that the guilt of the accused is

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Accordingly, the prosecution does not

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

nor of discretion on the part of the court. punishable by preclusion perpetua is

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

GABBY RECIT: allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by

Issue: Whether or not the right to bail

In Delos Santos-Reyes v. Judge Montesa,

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

b) The hearing on a petition for bail need

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

of which is punishable by reclusion accused filed a petition for bail on a

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

the following or other similar without a hearing is gross ignorance of

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

lower than proof beyond reasonable 2. Whether the offense is extraditable.

Q: DISCUSS THE BAIL IN EXTRADITION

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

representative’s signature on an “There are other differences between an

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

or property” of every person. It is that the vital international and bilateral

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Extradition cases are different from

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Extradition Treaty provisional liberty.

FACTS: Government of the USA filed a petition

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

bail. compatible with the summary nature of

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

3) The Proceedings Are Sui Generis 4) Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.

An extradition proceeding is sui generis: We are bound by pacta sunt servanda to

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Government of Hong Kong vs. Hon. Declaration are now recognized as

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In the provisional arrest of respondent