Presented to:

ATTY. PAISAL D. TANJILI, LLM

Presented by:

IAN JAY R. TOMAS

RIGHT TO BAIL 1
 TABLE OF

CONTENTS
I. Introduction 3
II. Definition 3
III. Kinds of Bail 4
IV. Other Parameters 6
V. Bail as Matter of Right 14
VI. Bail as a Matter of Discretion 16
VII. Procedures for Bail 17
VIII. Bail and Habeas Corpus 20
IX. Bail on Appeal 21
X. Standards for Fixing Bail 22
XI. Bail and Covid 19 23
XII. Bail and Extradition/Deportation 24
XIII. Bail and the Right to Travel 25
XIV. Results of Fieldwork 26
XV. Issues and Challenges 28
XVI. Documentation 31

RIGHT TO BAIL 2
INTRODUCTION
The right to bail is a fundamental right that ensures that an individual who is
accused of a crime can be released from incarceration while awaiting trial. This right
is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution in Article III, Section 13, which states that
"All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law." 1

In the Philippines, the right to bail is considered a basic principle of the country's
legal system. It upholds the idea that an accused individual is considered innocent
until proven guilty and should not be subjected to undue punishment, such as being
kept in detention while awaiting trial.

However, while the right to bail is considered a fundamental right in the

Philippines, it is not an absolute right. Exceptions to this right exist, where in certain
instances, persons accused of certain crimes may not be eligible for bail.

DEFINITION
Bail is a legal process that allows a person to temporary regain their liberty
while waiting for their criminal case to be resolved. In addition to the constitutional
provision, the rules on bail are set forth in the Rule 114 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which states that “Bail is the security given for the release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be
given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.” 2

1
Section 13, Article 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution
2
Section 1, Rule 114 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures

RIGHT TO BAIL 3
 Further, Section 2 of Rule 1143 of the RRCP states that all kinds of bail are
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled,
shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or
appealed to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the
court of these Rules;
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and
despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such
case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the
final judgment.

The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the
amount of the undertaking and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport
size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the face, left and right profiles of the
accused must be attached to the bail.

KINDS OF BAIL
Corporate Surety
Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a surety in accordance with
law and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed
jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board of
directors. 4

3
Section 2, Rule 114 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures
4
Section 10, Rule 114 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures

RIGHT TO BAIL 4
Property Bond
A property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given
as security for the amount of the bail. Within ten (10) days after the approval of the
bond, the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on
file with the Register of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the
Registration Book on the space provided therefor, in the Registry of Deeds for the
province or city where the land lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the
office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned.5

Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his compliance
and his failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property
bond and his re-arrest and detention.
The qualification of sureties in a property bond shall be as follows:
(a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines;
(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the
amount of the undertaking;
(c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than
that expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums must be
equivalent to the whole amount of bail demanded.
In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own
undertaking over and above all just debts, obligations and properties exempt from
execution.6

Deposit of Cash
The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the
nearest collector or internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the
amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated
or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written

5
Section 11, Rule 114 Revised Rules in Criminal Procedures
6
Section 12, Rule 114 Revised Rules in Criminal Procedures

RIGHT TO BAIL 5
undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the
accused shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered
as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be
returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.7

Recognizance
Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a person in
custody to his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. 8

As defined in RA10389, Recognizance is a mode of securing the release of any

person in custody or detention for the commission of an offense who is unable to post
bail due to abject poverty. The court where the case of such person has been filed
shall allow the release of the accused on recognizance as provided herein, to the
custody of a qualified member of the barangay, city or municipality where the accused
resides.9

OTHER PARAMETERS
AC No. 33-202010
Administrative Circular No. 33 was issued to further limit the physical movement
of court users, judges and personnel during the period of public health emergency as
declared by the President pursuant to existing laws. In accordance with existing rules,
the Judge on duty shall also determine if the accused should be admitted to bail as a
matter of right in accordance with Section 4, Rule 114, of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. If so, and once the accused has submitted all the requirements for bail,
which may likewise be initially electronically submitted to the court, the Judge on duty

7
Section 14, Rule 114 Revised Rules in Criminal Procedures
8
Section 15, Rule 114 Revised Rules in Criminal Procedures
9
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10389_2013.html
10
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/AC-33-2020.pdf

RIGHT TO BAIL 6
shall examine the submissions, and if complete and complaint, shall sign the approval
of the bail and the consequent release order.
The judge on duty shall may reduce the amount of bail initially fixed, upon
motion of the accused and after giving the prosecutor the opportunity to comment
within a non-extendible period of twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of the motion,
which motion and order to file comment thereon may likewise be sent electronically.
In view of the foregoing, the Office of the Court Administrator is directed to identify to
identify and inform the respective courts of the available accredited sureties which
may, whenever necessary, promptly issue the appropriate bail bonds during this public
health emergency period. Actions on the reduction of the bail shall be decided within
twenty four (24) hours from the expiration of the period to comment on the motion for
reduction of bail, with or without comment from the prosecutor.

The approval of the bail and the consequent release order shall then be
electronically transmitted by the Judge on duty to the Executive Judge who in turn
shall electronically transmit the same within the same day to the proper law
enforcement authority or detention facility to enable the release of the accused. The
electronically transmitted approval of bail and release order by the Executive Judge
shall be sufficient to cause the release of the accused. The initial online submission of
the requirements for bail may also be availed of by an accused who has been charged
before the court prior to the start of public health emergency period.

OCA 89-202011
This Circular is issued pursuant to par. 9 of Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 33-2020 directing the Office of the Court Administrator to issue the
necessary Guidelines to ensure the proper implementation of the said Administrative
Circular.

11
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sdm_downloads/oca-circular-no-89-2020/

RIGHT TO BAIL 7
 It was stressed out that the said Guidelines, which supplement AC 33-2020,
are only temporary and shall be in effect only during the duration of public health
emergency. Accordingly, in relation to procedures to bail the following are hereby
provided to implement AC 33-2020:

10. The posting of bail, whether through cash bond or surety bond, shall
indicate the case number and title, and the name of the accused for
whom the bond is being posted, and be made at any branch of the
LBP which shall issue a validated deposit slip after such payment. The
validated deposit slip shall indicate the LBP branch, and contact
number of the said branch, where the bond was posted and be
electronically transmitted to the concerned OCC CoC or BCC, who
shall then verify with the LBP branch where payment was made. Once
verified, the OCC CoC or BCC shall issue an official receipt, copies of
which shall be electronically transmitted to the JOD who shall consider
it in resolving the bail application, and to the paying party. The original
official receipt shall in the meantime be kept by the OCC or BCC and
shall be given to the paying party after the public health emergency
period. If a surety bond is posted, the surety bond, together with the
supporting documents, shall also be electronically transmitted to the
concerned OCC CoC or BCC who shall electronically forward them to
the JOD for appropriate action. In the event the surety bond and the
supporting documents are physically submitted to the concerned OCC
CoC or BCC, these shall likewise be scanned and electronically
transmitted to the JOD.

11. The requirements for bail, including but not limited to the pictures of
the accused, his or her fingerprints, and the Declaration from the
accused and Certification from the law enforcement agent or jail
warden that the pictures and fingerprints are those of the accused,

RIGHT TO BAIL 8
 and that the person under his or her custody, or who surrendered to
him or her, is the accused, may be electronically transmitted by the
accused, his or her representative, or counsel to the OCC CoC or
BCC of the single-sala court, as the case may be. The OCC CoC or
BCC shall then electronically transmit the same to the JOD for
personal evaluation and appropriate action. If the requirements for bail
are manually or physically submitted to the OCC CoC or BCC, they
shall be scanned and electronically transmitted to the JOD for his or
her appropriate action. A template of the Declaration of the Accused
and the Certification of the law enforcement agent or jail warden to be
submitted to the court is herein attached as Annex “A.”

12. In all cases, the JOD shall personally review the requirements
submitted and duly establish and determine the identity of the accused
before he or she is ordered released from detention. The JOD shall
likewise complete the Certification that he or she personally examined
the requirements (electronically) submitted, a template of which
Certification is herein attached as Annex “B,” and shall form part of
the records of the case. If the requirements for bail were electronically
transmitted to the court, the original hard copies shall likewise be
physically sent to the court before the release order, if warranted, is
issued. Should the JOD engender some doubts as to identity of the
accused, or to any of the requirements submitted, he or she may
require additional proof or simply altogether deny the application for
bail.

13. Pursuant to par. 5 of A.C. 33-2020, orders for the approval of the bail
and release of the accused shall be “electronically transmitted to the
Executive Judge who in turn shall electronically transmit the same
within the same day to the proper law enforcement authority or

RIGHT TO BAIL 9
 detention facility to enable the release of the accused. The
electronically transmitted approval of bail and release order by the
Executive Judge shall be sufficient to cause the release of the
accused.” For this purpose, Executive Judges and single-sala court
Judges shall require the law enforcers and jail wardens in their
respective areas to provide official email addresses and other contact
details and coordinate with them to ensure that only approvals of bail
and release orders electronically sent and emanating from the said
Executive Judges and single-sala court Judges shall be honored and
implemented.

14. Upon request, the accused, or his or her representative, shall likewise
be furnished certified true copies of the approval of bail and release
order, within the same day of their issuance, which certified true
copies shall also be sufficient to cause the release of the accused,
upon verification from the concerned OCC CoC or BCC.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 91-202012

Considering the continuing congestion of detention facilities nationwide and the
consequent high risk of Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) being afflicted with Covid-
19, "[t]here is a need to effectively implement existing policies laid down by the
Constitution, the laws and the rules respecting the accused's right to bail and to speedy
trial in the context of decongesting our detention jails and humanizing the conditions
of detained persons pending the hearing of their cases," as provided in the Resolution
of the Court en banc in A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC dated 18 March 2014.

Accordingly, ALL JUDGES of the first and second level courts are hereby
REMINDED to ADHERE to the Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing

12
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sdm_downloads/oca-circular-no-91-2020/

RIGHT TO BAIL 10
the Rights of the Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial (Guidelines), as
prescribed in the above Resolution of the Court en banc, particularly Sections 5 and
10 thereof, quoted herein, as follows:

''Sec. 5. Release after service of minimum imposable penalty. -

The accused who has been detained for a period of at least equal to the
minimum of the penalty for the offense charged against him shall be
ordered released motu proprio or upon motion and after notice and
hearing, on his own recognizance without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him. [Sec. 16, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
and Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. 10389]
Sec. W. Provisional dismissal. - (a) When the delays are due to
the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown
or cannot be determined and, therefore, are subject to exclusion in
determining compliance with the prescribed time limits which caused the
trial to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, the court shall
provisionally dismiss the action with the express consent of the detained
accused.

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential

witness whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his
whereabouts are known, the court shall provisionally dismiss the action
with the express consent of the detained accused provided:

(1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice

postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential
witness and both the witness and the offended party, if they
are two (2) different persons, have been given notice of the
setting of the case for third hearing, which notice contains a
warning that the case would be dismissed if the essential
witness continues to be absent; and

RIGHT TO BAIL 11
 (2) there is proof of service of the pertinent notices of
hearings or subpoenas upon the essential witness and the
offended party at their last known postal or e-mail addresses
or mobile phone numbers.

(c) For the above purpose, the public or private prosecutor shall
first present during the trial the essential witness or witnesses to the case
before anyone else. An essential witness is one whose testimony dwells
on the presence of some or all of the elements of the crime and whose
testimony is indispensable to the conviction of the accused."

ALL JUDGES of the first and second level courts are therefore DIRECTED to
immediately conduct an inventory of their pending criminal cases to determine if they
have cases which may be covered by the above Guidelines, and if so, to comply with
the said Guidelines without unnecessary delay, using their sound discretion. They shall
immediately act motu proprio on cases of PDLs who have been detained for a period
at least equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense charged, and if warranted,
may release such detainees on their own recognizance, provided the court is assured
of where the accused can be located while their cases are on-going trial, e.g., the
accused must provide contact numbers and exact address where they will be residing
and contact numbers of at least 2 (two) of their nearest of kins with their exact
addresses as well.

Motions for recognizance and provisional dismissal of cases resulting to the

release of the PDLs from detention may be considered urgent and must be
immediately set for hearing. If release orders are warranted, Judges may apply the
pertinent provisions of Supreme Court Administrative Circular 33-2020 and OCA
Circular No. 89-2020 on the electronic transmission of said release orders.

RIGHT TO BAIL 12
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 38 - 202013

The issuance of Administrative Circular No. 38-2020 pertains to reduced bail

and recognizance as modes for releasing indigent persons deprived of liberty during
this period of public health emergency, pending resolution of their cases

In view of the foregoing, and upon consultation with the Members of the Court,
considering the urgent need to further decongest our detention facilities, especially
during this time of public health emergency, to promote social and restorative justice,
bail and recognizance for indigent Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) shall be granted
as follows, pending the continuation of the criminal proceedings and resolution of
cases against them:

1. For those charged with a crime punishable with the maximum period
of reclusion temporal or twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years, the bail shall be computed by getting the medium period
multiplied by Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for every year of
imprisonment;

2. For those charged with a crime punishable with the maximum period
of prision mayor or six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years,
the bail shall be computed by getting the medium period multiplied by
Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for every year of imprisonment;

3. For those charged with a crime punishable with the maximum period
of prision correccional or six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years,
the bail shall be computed by getting the medium period multiplied by
One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for every year of imprisonment;

13
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/AC-38-2020.pdf

RIGHT TO BAIL 13
 4. For those charged with a crime punishable by arresto mayor or one
(1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, and arresto menor or one
(1) day to thirty (30) days, they may be released on their own
recognizance;

Any violation of the undertaking or conditions imposed on the bail or

recognizance shall be a ground for the cancellation of the said bail or recognizance
which will justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused.

For indigent PDLs who have not yet been arraigned, they must first be
arraigned before being granted bail or recognizance, which arraignment and release
on bail or recognizance may be conducted through videoconferencing as provided in
A.C. 37-2020. For those who have already been arraigned and undergoing trial, they
may likewise avail of this Circular, unless they have already served the minimum
imposable penalty for the crime they are accused, in which case, they may be released
on their own recognizance in accordance with Sec. 5, A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, dated 18
March 2014, as reiterated in OCA Circ. 91-2020.

This is without prejudice to the exercise of the court's discretion to deny the
application for bail or recognizance if there are reasonable grounds based on
prevailing jurisprudence and existing rules, and to the imposition of additional bail and
conditions, or the cancellation thereof, to those who will be convicted, pending their
appeal. This Circular shall not apply to those already serving sentence.

WHEN RIGHT MAY BE INVOKED

All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a)
before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction
by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,

RIGHT TO BAIL 14
or life imprisonment. (4a)14

In the case of People v. Fitzgerald15, bail was not a matter of right but a mere
privilege subject to the discretion of the CA to be exercised in accordance with the
stringent requirements of Sec. 5, Rule 114. And Sec. 5 directs the denial or revocation
of bail upon evidence of the existence of any of the circumstances enumerated
therein such as those indicating probability of flight if released on bail or undue risk
that the accused may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. It is
bad enough that the CA granted bail on grounds other than those stated in the Motion
filed by respondent; it is worse that it granted bail on the mere claim of the latter's
illness. Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner needing
medical care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail.

Moreover, in the case of People v. Valdez16, the court said that the term
"punishable" should refer to prescribed, not imposable, penalty. RPC Article 48 states
that in complex crimes, "the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period." In considering Bail (Rule 114, Sections 4
and 7), the maximum prescribed penalty of the most serious crime shall be taken into
account. Citing the case of People v. Temporada, which was even cited by petitioner,
perceptibly distinguished these two concepts: The RPC provides for an initial penalty
as a general prescription for the felonies defined therein which consists of a range of
period of time. This is what is referred to as the "prescribed penalty.”

It is not amiss to point that in charging a complex crime, the information should
allege each element of the complex offense with the same precision as if the two (2)
constituent offenses were the subject of separate prosecutions. Where a complex
crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the

14
Section 4, Rule 114 Revised Rules in Criminal Procedure
15
People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, October 27, 2006
16
People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 216007-09, December 8, 2015

RIGHT TO BAIL 15
component offenses, the defendant can be convicted of the offense proven.

NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT/DISCRETIONARY

Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The
application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a
notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate
court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the
nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be
filed with and resolved by the appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue
on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject
to the consent of the bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years,
the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid
justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the

RIGHT TO BAIL 16
resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case.
(5a)17

One of the conditions of bail is for the accused to appear before the proper
court whenever required by the court or these Rules. The practice of bail fixing
supports this purpose. Admission to bail always involves that the accused will take
flight. This is the reason precisely why the probability or the improbability of flight is
important factor to be taken into consideration in granting or denying bail, even in
capital cases. The exception to the fundamental right to bail should be applied in direct
ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion of prosecution. (Enrile v.
Sandiganbayan)18

However, in the case of Napoles v. Sandiganbayan19, the court ruled that it is

precisely the enormous gravity of this offense that capital punishment is imposed on
those who are found guilty of Plunder. As a necessary consequence, provisional liberty
is not easily granted to those accused of this offense, especially when the prosecution
more than amply established that the evidence of guilt is strong. This is a matter of
judicial discretion on the part of the trial court, which this Court may nullify only when
the exercise of this discretion is tainted with arbitrariness and capriciousness that the
trial court failed to act within the contemplation of law.

PROCEDURE FOR BAIL

1. The applicant should first be in the custody of the law.
2. Upon proper application for admission to bail, the court having custody of the
accused should, as a matter of course, grant the same after a hearing
conducted to specifically determine the conditions of the bail in accordance with
Section 6 (now, Section 2) of Rule 114.

17
Section 5, Rule 114 Revised Rules in Criminal Procedures
18
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 8, 2015
19
Napoles v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 224162, November 7, 2017

RIGHT TO BAIL 17
 3. On the other hand, as the grant of bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion
on the part of the court under the exceptions to the rule, a hearing, mandatory
in nature and which should be summary or otherwise in the discretion of the
court, is required with the participation of both the defense and a duly notified
representative of the prosecution, this time to ascertain whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong for the provisional liberty of the applicant.
4. Where such a hearing is set upon proper motion or petition, the prosecution
must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the
evidence that it may want to introduce before the court may resolve the
application, since it is equally entitled as the accused to due process.
5. When, eventually, the court issues an order either granting or refusing bail, the
same should contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution, followed
by its conclusion as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

Constructive Custody of the Law

In the case of Paderanga v. CA20, the Court ruled that there is constructive
custody when the accused, through his lawyers, expressly submitted to physical and
legal control over his person:
1. By filing the application for bail with the trail court;
2. By furnishing true information of his actual whereabouts; and
3. More importantly, by unequivocally recognizing the jurisdiction of the said
court.

Prosecution is equally entitled to due process in bail proceedings

The Court ruled in the case of People v. Gako21, that it is inconceivable how
Judge Gako, Jr. could have appreciated the strength or weakness of the evidence of

20
Paderanga v. CA, G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995
21
People v. Gako, G.R. No. 135045, December 15, 2000

RIGHT TO BAIL 18
guilt of the accused when he did not even bother to hear the prosecution. The reliance
of Judge Gako, Jr. on the voluminous records of the case simply does not suffice.

As judge, he was mandated to conduct a hearing on the petition for bail of the
accused since he knew that the crime charged is one that carries a penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and in that hearing, the prosecution is entitled to present its evidence. It is
worth stressing that the prosecution is equally entitled to due process.

Conclusion without a summary of the evidence voids the grant of

bail
In the case of People v. Gako22, the Court ruled that the order granting bail
issued by Judge Gako, Jr. merely made a conclusion without a summary of the
evidence, a substantive and formal defect that voids the grant of bail. Well settled is
the rule that after the hearing, whether the bail is granted or denied, the presiding
judge is mandated to prepare a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. A
summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a text
or statement.

Based on the summary of evidence, the judge formulates his own conclusion
on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. The
importance of a summary cannot be downplayed, it is considered an aspect of
procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will
invalidate the grant or denial of bail.
In the case of Barbero v. Dumlao23, the court cited the case of Cruz v. Judge
Yaneza, the Court held that: There are prerequisites to be complied with. First, the
application for bail must be filed in the court where the case is pending. In the absence
or unavailability of the judge thereof, the application for bail must be filed with another
branch of the same court within the province or city. Second, if the accused is arrested

22
Ibid.
23
Barbero v. Dumlao, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1682, June 19, 2008

RIGHT TO BAIL 19
in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may be
filed with any regional trial court of the place.

There was no showing that Judge Anghad was absent or unavailable or that
Medina was arrested outside Santiago City. Thus, Medina's bail should have been
filed with Judge Anghad. Even if Judge Anghad were absent or unavailable or even if
Medina were arrested in San Mateo, Judge Dumlao would still be liable because the
bail should have been filed with another branch of the RTC in Santiago City or with the
RTC of San Mateo, respectively.

Since the criminal case was pending before the RTC of Santiago City and there
was no showing that Judge Anghad of the RTC was absent or unavailable, Judge
Dumlao lacked authority to approve the bail and order Medina's release.

BAIL AND HABEAS CORPUS

In the case of Go Sr. v. Ramos24, a writ of habeas corpus is a special
proceeding to determine whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. What
is to be inquired into is the legality of a person's detention as of, at the earliest, the
filing of the application for the writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its
inception illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening events, be no longer illegal at
the time of the filing of the application. Once a person detained is duly charged in court,
he may no longer question his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. When an alien is detained by the Bureau of Immigration for deportation
pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation Board, the Regional Trial Courts
have no power to release such alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings
because there is no law authorizing it.

24
Go Sr. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569, September 4, 2009

RIGHT TO BAIL 20
BAIL ON APPEAL
In the case of Maguddatu v. CA25, the Court ruled that pursuant to Section 5 of
Rule 114, the accused may be admitted to bail upon the court's discretion after
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment. However, such bail shall be denied or bail previously granted shall
be cancelled if the penalty imposed is imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more
than 20 years if any one of the circumstances enumerated in the third paragraph of
Section 5 is present.

Further, the Court ruled that the filing of a notice of appeal effectively deprived
the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion for bail pending appeal because
appeal is perfected by the mere filing of such notice. It has been held that trial courts
would be well advised to leave the matter of bail, after conviction for a lesser crime
than the capital offense originally charged, to the appellate court's sound discretion.

Moreover, in the case of Obosa v. CA26, the Court ruled that while bail was
granted by the trial court when it had jurisdiction, the approval of the bail bond (June
4) was done without authority, because by then, the appeal had already been
perfected (June 1) and the trial court had lost jurisdiction. Needless to say, the situation
would have been different had bail been granted and approval thereof given before
the notice of appeal was filed.

STANDARDS FOR FIXING BAIL

The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a
reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

25
Maguddatu v. CA, G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000
26
Obosa v. CA, G.R. No. 114350, January 16, 1997

RIGHT TO BAIL 21
 (b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a)27

In the case of Cabañero v. Cañon28, the court decided that Judge Cañon erred
in ordering the arrest of Guillerma D. Cabañero. She was not included as one of the
respondents in the criminal case filed by the chief of police of Hinatuan. The judges’s
interpretation of his powers under the Revised Rules of Court was far-fetched. The
judge also imposed excessive bail. Under Department Circular 4, the 1996 Bail Bond
Guide for the National Prosecution Service for the offense of qualified theft, if the value
of the property stolen is more than P200.00 but does not exceed P6,000.00, the bail
recommended is P24,000.00. Herein, the monetary value of the falcata trees cut into
logs is P3,191.40. The bail of P30,000 is not proportionate to the amount stolen. When
the law transgressed is elementary, the failure to know or observe it constitutes gross
ignorance of the law. Judge Antonio K. Cañon was ordered to pay a fine in the amount
of P5,000.00, to be taken from his retirement benefits in view of his demise.

Moreover, in the case of Victory Liner v. Belosillo29, the court ruled that the
amount of bail should, therefore be reasonable at all times. It must be high enough to
assure the presence of the accused when required but no higher than is reasonably

27
Section 9, Revised Rules in Criminal Procedures
28
Cabañero v. Cañon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1369, September 20, 2001
29
Victory Liner v. Belosillo, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1321, March 10, 2004

RIGHT TO BAIL 22
calculated to serve this purpose. Excessive bail should not be required. The Rules of
Court allowed the payment of Bail bond in cash in lieu of Surety Bond, but the choice
belong to the accused.

BAIL AND COVID 19

In Almonte v. People30, it emphasized that the Supreme Court is a collegiate
judicial body whose rulings and binding opinions are the results of its members'
collective and majoritarian consensus. The doctrines it establishes do not depend on
the judgment or will of a sole magistrate as such is the spirit of collegiality. Thus, after
initial deliberations and exchanges of ideas, it was collectively realized that the instant
case presents several complex issues making the interaction of applicable principles
ridden with far-reaching implications. Nonetheless, the members of this Court have
unanimously arrived at the conclusion to treat the petition as petitioners' application
for bail or recognizance, as well as their motions for other practicable and suitable
confinement arrangements relative to the alleged serious threats to their health and
lives.

The Court treats the present petition as petitioners' applications for bail or
recognizance as well as their motions for other confinement arrangements,
and refers the same to the respective trial courts where their criminal cases are
pending, which courts are hereby directed to conduct the necessary proceedings and
consequently, resolve these incidents with utmost dispatch.

BAIL ON EXTRADITION AND DEPORTATION

Section 29a of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition
Law) defines “extradition” as “the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the
object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting
state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed

30
Almonte v. People, G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020

RIGHT TO BAIL 23
against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal
law of the requesting state or government.”

Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign power, created
by treaty, to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crime within its
territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to surrender him to the
demanding state. It is not a criminal proceeding. Even if the potential extraditee is a
criminal, an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not a
punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may follow extradition. It is sui
generis, tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between different nations. It
is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. Nor is it a
full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. Its object is to
prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his
return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment.

In Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia31, wherein the Court ruled that if bail can
be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also be
allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be
invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the
innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.

The SC after thoroughly explaining the adoption of the right to bail in the
international law, it adopted the proposal of Chief Justice Puno, that a new standard
which he termed “clear and convincing evidence” should be used in granting bail in
extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond
reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extradite
must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that he is not a flight risk and will abide
with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.

31
Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia, G.R. No. 15675, April 19, 2007

RIGHT TO BAIL 24
 On the other hand, aliens in deportation proceedings, as a rule, have no
inherent right to bail (Prentis v. Manoogian, 16 F. 2d. 422; U.S. ex rel. Papis v.
Tomlinson, 45 F. Supp. 447; U.S. ex rel. Iaonnis v. Garfinkle, 44 F. Supp. 518); and it
has been held that a person arrested or detained cannot be released on bail, unless
that right is granted expressly by law (Bengzon v. Ocampo, et al., 84 Phil. 611). Section
37 (9) (e) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 (Comm. Act No. 613, as amended),
provides that “Any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be released
under bond or under such other conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner
of Immigration.”

Note that this provision confers upon the Commissioner of Immigration the
power and discretion to grant bail in deportation proceedings, but does not grant to
aliens the right to be released on bail. The use of the word "may" in said provision
indicates that the grant of bail is merely permissive and not mandatory or obligatory
on the part of the Commissioner. The exercise of the power is wholly discretionary
(U.S. ex rel. Zapp, et al. v. District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, 120 F.
2d. 762; Ex parte Perkov, 45 F. Supp. 864; Colyer v. Skeffington, 265 F. 17). The
determination as to the propriety of allowing an alien, subject to deportation under the
Immigration Act, to be released temporarily on bail, as well as the conditions thereof,
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and not in the courts of
justice. The reason for this is that the courts do not administer immigration laws.

BAIL AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL / CHANGE OF ABODE

A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the
Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.
Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and
given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear
before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail

RIGHT TO BAIL 25
bond or recognizance. This in itself operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel.
(Manotoc v. CA)32

Moreover, in the case of Sy v. Sandiganbayan33, it may not be amiss to state

that courts should always be mindful that an accused is afforded the constitutional
presumption of innocence, and hence, entitled to the entire gamut of his rights, subject
only to reasonable restrictions that are based on concrete facts, and not mere
speculation.
The birth certificate presented by the petitioner is a public document and thus,
a prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein such as on citizenship.
Furthermore, the petitioner pivotal roles as a Chairman of FNI, as a Committee
Chairman for MPCCI and Vice-Chairman of the PICC, render his foreign travels
necessary for him to effectively execute his corporate duties.

RESULTS OF FIELDWORK
The right to bail is a fundamental right in the criminal justice system that allows
for the release of a suspect from custody pending their trial. It is an essential safeguard
against arbitrary detention and a mechanism for ensuring that a defendant is not
unfairly punished before being convicted of a crime. However, the right to bail has
recently come under scrutiny due to concerns about its proper implementation and
potential for abuse.

As part of our fieldwork, series of interviews were conducted in the detention

and rehabilitation centers in South Cotabato and General Santos City, LGUs in South
Cotabato and General Santos City, and individuals who had been directly impacted by
the bail system. Findings indicate that the right to bail is not being uniformly applied
across the board, and that some defendants are being unfairly penalized by the
system.

32
Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986
33
Sy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 237703, October 3, 2018

RIGHT TO BAIL 26
 Based on the gathered data and conducted interviews from the different offices
and agencies assigned, the right to bail has a significant impact and fundamental to
decongestion of both detention centers and rehabilitation centers.

Data shows that only 4 out of 10 PDLs know their right to bail. This is an
indicator that persons under custody lacked knowledge on some of their rights not until
they were able to talk to their counsels. Some of the detention center and rehabilitation
centers cover a huge number of bailable cases yet they are unable to post primarily
because of monetary constraint.

The primary concern raised by interviewees is the impact of monetary bail on

low-income defendants. Many individuals do not have the financial resources to post
bail, and as a result, are forced to remain in custody until their trial. This often leads to
individuals being held in jails for extended periods of time, even if they pose no risk of
flight or danger to the community. As a result, some individuals may plead guilty simply
to secure their release from custody, even if they are ultimately innocent.

RIGHT TO BAIL 27
 Another issue highlighted by our interviewees is the over-reliance on pre-trial
detention, particularly in cases where defendants are charged with non-violent crimes.
While bail is intended to be a mechanism to ensure a defendant's appearance at trial,
in practice, prosecutors often argue that pre-trial detention is necessary for public
safety or to prevent a defendant from committing another crime. This has resulted in
an increase in the use of preventative detention, leading to a growing incarcerated
population.

Another finding is that some public officials also lacked information and
knowledge to some of the law that would eventually help those persons under custody
who are qualified to post for a bail. LGUs have an important role on implementing and
granting such right to those individuals but they failed to embody their role as public
officials who are responsible for the exercise of the right to bail particularly on
recognizance.

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

The right to bail is a fundamental human right that is enshrined in the Philippine
Constitution. It is the legal provision that guarantees an accused person temporary
freedom from incarceration while they await trial or sentencing. However, the actual
implementation of this right in the Philippines has been fraught with challenges and
issues that have hindered its effective application.

One of the most significant challenges faced in the right to bail in the Philippines
is the issue of discrimination and lack of knowledge not only by the PDLs and PUPCs
but also of our public officials. Bail hearings in the country are often characterized by
systemic prejudice against marginalized groups, particularly the poor. The justice
system in the Philippines exhibits a bias towards the wealthy and powerful, who are
more likely to have the necessary resources to furnish bail. On the contrary, people
from low-income backgrounds tend to be financially constrained, making it difficult for
them to meet the bail requirements, even if the charges against them are minor. This

RIGHT TO BAIL 28
inequality creates a significant obstacle for the implementation of the right to bail, as it
unfairly impacts the vulnerable members of society.

Another issue that arises in the implementation of the right to bail in the
Philippines is the prevalence of corruption. The Philippine’s bail system is notorious
for encouraging corruption, with many instances of judges and law enforcement
officials using their position to solicit bribes in exchange for securing bail for a
defendant. The corruption in the system tends to further exacerbate the discrimination
issues, as, in most cases, the wealthy and well-connected can easily pay off corrupt
officials to expedite their proceedings. This form of corruption runs counter to the
fundamental principle of the right to bail, which is meant to guarantee equal access to
justice for all.

Overcrowding in jails is another significant challenge to the right to bail in the

Philippines. The country' prisons have a capacity of around 40,000 inmates, but they
are known to hold three times that number. This overcrowding leads to inhumane
conditions and poor sanitation, which not only violates the human dignity of the
detainees but also violates their right to good health. Furthermore, overcrowding can
lead to longer detention periods for inmates, which can be detrimental to their mental
health and overall wellbeing. These challenges tend to generate a broad demand for
bail hearings, putting increased pressure on the courts and further complicating the
process.

Lastly, delays in court proceedings are a significant challenge to the right to bail
in the Philippines. The Philippine’s legal system is notoriously slow in processing
cases, with many defendants waiting for years before their trial is concluded.
Prolonged detention of accused persons facing trial undermines the essence of the
right to bail, which is meant to guarantee pre-trial release. Delayed proceedings,
coupled with the issues mentioned above, put a lot of strain on the justice system,

RIGHT TO BAIL 29
resulting in long detention periods, increased court backlog, and a violation of an
individual's rights.

Therefore, the right to bail in the Philippines is facing numerous challenges and
issues that are hindering its proper implementation. Lack of information,
discrimination, corruption, overcrowding, and delays in court proceedings all
contribute to the difficulties encountered in implementing this right. To address these
challenges, the government must prioritize reforms that ensure equal access to justice
and eliminate corruption. The justice system must also prioritize the protection of
fundamental human rights and ensure that the right to bail is not compromised. With
the right policies and legal reforms, the right to bail can be effectively implemented,
leading to just and fair outcomes for all.

RIGHT TO BAIL 30
 DOCUMENTATION

Interview with LGU Koronadal City Vice Mayor, Hon. Erlinda P. Araquil, MDMG, DPA on LGU’s
participation and intervention on Recognizance.

Interview with (From left to right) PLT Francis M. Blancada, Police Human Rights Chief - PNP
Gensan, PCOL Jomar Alexis A. Yap, City Director-PNP Gensan, and Rexor Jake Carillo
Canoy, Chief of City Investigation Detective & Management Unit - PNP Gensan in relation to
the right to bail.

RIGHT TO BAIL 31
Interview with LGU Gensan City Councilor, Atty. Froebel Kan M. Ballege on LGU’s participation and
intervention on Recognizance.

Interview with one of the PDLs of South Cotabato Rehabilitation and Detention Center with
regard to her right to bail.

RIGHT TO BAIL 32
Interview with Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Officers – General Santos City on matters in
relation to the right to bail.

Interview with some police officers and PUPCs in Police Station 4 at General Santos City on
matters in relation to the right to bail

RIGHT TO BAIL 33
RIGHT TO BAIL 34
RIGHT TO BAIL 35
RIGHT TO BAIL 36
RIGHT TO BAIL 37
RIGHT TO BAIL 38
RIGHT TO BAIL 39
RIGHT TO BAIL 40
RIGHT TO BAIL 41
RIGHT TO BAIL 42
RIGHT TO BAIL 43