POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

KA-POLI NOTES Is the right to bail impaired while the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended?
No. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.

When is bail a matter of right? Is it absolute?

Bail is a matter of right before the final conviction, but the rule
is not absolute. The exception is when a person is charged
with a capital offense when the evidence of guilt is strong, or
when the offense for which one is charged is punishable by
reclusion perpetua. The exception to this rule, however, is
even if a person is charged with a capital offense where the
evidence of the guilt is strong, is when the accused has failing
health, hence, for humanitarian reasons, he may be admitted
to bail, but that is discretionary on the part of the court.

What are the forms of bail?

(1.) Corporate surety;
(2.) Property bond;
(3.) Cash deposit; and
This reviewer is made out of love and fear for the law. Please
(4.) Recognizance.
do not hesitate to share this material because sharing is caring
and karma always has its ways. #NoToCrabs
What are the kinds of bail?
(1.) Matter of right; or
BILL OF RIGHTS (2.) Matter of discretion.

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses When is the right to bail available?
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is (1.) Since bail is constitutionally available to all persons, it
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient must be available to one who is detained even before
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided formal charges are filed. It is sufficient that the person
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the claiming the right must be under the custody of the law
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive either when he has been arrested or has surrendered
bail shall not be required. himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Any person in
custody, who is not yet charged in court, may apply for
bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality
RIGHT TO BAIL
where he is held.
(2.) Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
What is Bail?
does not suspend the right to bail.
The security given for the release of a person in custody of
(3.) A witness may post bail when so required by the court to
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his
secure his appearance in court.
appearance before any court as required under the Rules of
(4.) Even when the accused has previously jumped bail, still,
Court.
he cannot be denied bail before conviction if it is a
matter of right. The remedy is to increase the amount of
From where does the right to bail emanate?
bail.
The right to bail emanates from the right to be presumed
(5.) An extraditee also has the right to apply for bail. The
innocent. It is accorded to a person in the custody of the law
National commitment to uphold the fundamental
who may by reason of the presumption of innocence he
human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of
enjoys, be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security
every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to
to guarantee his appearance before any court, as required
those charged in criminal proceedings, but also to
under specific circumstances.
extradites upon clear and convincing showing that:
a. The detainee will not be a flight risk or a
Is there a need for an accused to be formally charged in court
danger to the community; and
to be entitled to post bail?
b. There exists a special, humanitarian, and
No. The accused need not be charged formally before he can
compelling circumstance.
post bail, so long as he is under arrest.

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
When is the right to bail not available? evidence of guilt of the accused is weak, the court has no
(1.) As a general rule, the Constitutional right to bail is discretion but to grant bail.
available only in criminal proceedings. Thus, it has been
repeatedly held that respondents in deportation What are the standards for fixing the amount of bail?
proceedings, which are administrative in nature, do not (1.) Financial ability of the accused;
enjoy the right. When an alien is detained by the Bureau (2.) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
of Immigration for deportation pursuant to an order of (3.) Penalty for offense;
deportation by the Deportation Board, the RTCs have no (4.) Character and reputation of the accused;
power to release such alien even in habeas corpus (5.) Probability of his appearance at trial;
proceedings because there is no law authorizing it. (6.) Age and health of the accused;
(2.) Traditionally, the right to bail has not been recognized (7.) Weight of evidence against him;
and is not available to the military as an exception to the (8.) Forfeiture of other bail;
Bill of Rights. (9.) Whether he was a fugitive from justice when arrested;
and
What is the duty of the courts (or of the trial judge) whenever (10.) Pendency of other cases where he is on bail.
an application for bail is filed before them?
(1.) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application What is the rationale behind the prohibition against excessive
for bail, or require him to submit his recommendation. bail?
(2.) Conduct a summary hearing of the application for bail, The prohibition against requiring excessive bail is enshrined
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to in the Constitution. The rationale as declared is that imposing
present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless, he
strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise right to bail. The Supreme Court stated that it will not hesitate
its sound discretion. to exercise its supervisory powers over lower courts should
(3.) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is the latter, after holding the accused entitled to bail, effectively
strong based on the summary of evidence of the deny the same by imposing a prohibitory sum or exacting
prosecution. unreasonable conditions for it is a grim irony in an accused
(4.) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the being told that he has the right to bail but at the same time
accused upon the approval of the bail bond. Otherwise, being required to post such is an exorbitant sum.
petition should be denied.
When is bail a matter of right?
The Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive bail. Generally, bail is a mater of right, except when a person is
What are the purposes of the prohibition? charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, life
(1.) To safeguard the liability of the individual; imprisonment, or death* when the evidence of the guilt is
(2.) Imposition of excessive bail amounts to the nullification strong.
of the right to bail, which is offensive to the Constitution
and All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of
(3.) Right to bail would become meaningless. right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance
as prescribed by law or this rule:
Is Hearing Mandatory when Application for Bail is Made? (1.) Before or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC; and
Yes. Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion (2.) Before conviction by the RTC for an offense not
reasonable notice is required to be given the prosecutor, or at punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
least he must be asked for his recommendation, because in imprisonment.
fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into
account a number of factors. When bail is a matter of discretion?
Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment; the court, on
reclusion perpetua or higher, a hearing on the motion for bail application, may admit the accused to bail. The court, in its
must be conducted by the judge to determine whether or not discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional
the evidence of guilt is strong. When bail is discretionary, the liberty after the same bail bond during the period to appeal
prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of subject to the consent of the bondsman.
guilt against the accused is strong.
The mere probability of escape does not warrant the denial of
Before conviction, the exercise of discretion of the court is the right to bail; the remedy is to increase the bail provided it
only limited in the determination of the gravity of guilt of the is not excessive. But after conviction in the RTC, the accused
accused. If after summary hearing, it is determined that may be denied bail if there is risk of his absconding.
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the court has no
choice but to deny the application for bail. Inversely, if the

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
What is the reason behind the rule that after conviction, bail right on the part of the accused nor a matter of discretion on
is a matter of discretion? the part of the court. In such a situation, the court would not
It is based on the underlying principle that bail should be have only determined that the evidence of guilt is strong—
granted only where it is uncertain whether the accused is which would have been sufficient to deny bail even before
guilty or innocent, and therefore, where the uncertainty is conviction—it would have likewise ruled that the accused’s
removed by conviction it would, generally, be absurd to admit guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not
bail. then be granted to the accused during the pendency of his
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
After a person has been tried and convicted, the presumption
of innocence which may be relied upon in prior applications An accused filed a motion for bail before he was actually
is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to show error placed under arrest. He failed to appear at the hearing as he
in the conviction. was confined at a hospital. Can he be granted bail?
Yes, because tat that point, he can be considered as being
May the court, in granting bail impose the condition, that he constructively and legally under custody. Due to these
will remain a resident of the place and if he changes residence, peculiar circumstances, he is deemed to have voluntarily
it must be with prior notice to the court? submitted his person to the custody of the law and
Yes. The right to change abode and travel within the necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court which
Philippines are not absolute. While the Constitution thereafter granted bail as prayed for.
guarantees such rights, the same can be impaired when the
interest of national security, public safety or public health so While a person may not be entitled to bail, under what
require as provided by law. The condition did not prevent him circumstances may the court grant bail?
from changing his abode; he was merely required to inform Even if the accused is not entitled to bail, the court may
the court in case he changed it. accommodate his request for a medical check-up. It has been
said that while justice is the first virtue of the court, yet
May a person who has not been arrested be granted bail? admittedly, humanity is the second.
No. A person who is free cannot be granted bail, but it is not
necessary that he be charged formally before he can file bail, A prisoner may be released on bail when his continued
so long as he is under arrest. detention would be injurious to his health. The court cannot
be indifferent to the medical needs of an accused.
When bail is denied?
No person, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, State the nature of the hearing in an application for bail.
shall be admitted to bail if charged with a capital offense, or A hearing in an application for bail is absolutely indispensable
an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life before a judge can properly determine whether the
imprisonment or death; AND evidence of guilt is strong. prosecution’s evidence is weak or strong. In receiving
evidence on bail, while the court is not required to try the
Upon conviction by the RTC, imposing a penalty of merits of the case, he must nevertheless conduct a summary
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years, hearing which is “such brief and speedy method of receiving
the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and
shall be cancelled, upon showing by the prosecution, with consistent with the purposes of the hearing which is to
notice to the accused, of the following or other similar determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail.”
circumstances:
(1.) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or A denial of the prosecution’s request to adduce evidence
habitual delinquent, or has committed a crime deprives it of procedural due process, a right to which it is
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteracion; entitled equally as the defense.
(2.) That the accused is found to have previously escaped
from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has What does it mean that bail must be granted within the
violated the conditions of his bail without valid jurisdiction of the judge granting it?
justification; It should be granted by the court where the case is pending
(3.) That the accused committed the offense while on or at least a branch thereof. The release order should at least
probation, parole, or under conditional pardon; be issued by the said court or another branch of the same
(4.) That the circumstances of the accused or his case court.
indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; and
(5.) That there is an underlying risk that during the pendency What must be done before bail may be granted where it is a
of the appeal, the accused may commit another crime. matter of discretion?
Where bail is a matter of discretion, the prosecution must first
If an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by be accorded an opportunity to present proof to show that the
reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court and evidence of the guilt of the accused is strong. Any order issued
sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter in the absence of that procedural due process is not a product

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
of sound judicial discretion but of whim and caprice and SUMMARY OF BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, WHEN
outright arbitrariness. DISCRETIONARY, AND WHEN DENIED.

Can the court grant the motion for bail where it is a matter of 1. When a Matter of Right
discretion merely on the ground that the prosecutor failed to (a.) Before or after conviction by the MTC;
appear? (b.) Before conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT
No, because if the prosecutor fails to appear or refuses to PUNISHABLE by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and imprisonment (DRL); and
fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such questions as (c.) Before conviction by the RTC of an offense PUNISHABLE
would ascertain the strength of the State’s evidence or judge by DRL but evidence of guilt is NOT strong.
the adequacy of the amount of bail.
2. When Discretionary
If a person is convicted of a capital offense, is he entitled to After conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT PUNISHABLE
bail on appeal? by DRL.
No, because his conviction clearly imports that the evidence
of guilt is strong. If he was on bail, the court that tried the case 3. When it Shall be Denied
can cancel the bail bond in the decision itself or in another (a.) Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable
order. by DRL but evidence of guilt is strong;
(b.) After conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by
May a person, who is under detention, file a petition for DRL; and
habeas corpus instead of a petition for bail? (c.) After conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT
No. The petition for habeas corpus is not the applicable PUNISHABLE by DRL and the presence of bail-denying-
vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial. circumstances.
The correct recourse is to file a petition for bail claiming a
right to bail per se by reason of the weakness of the evidence What are the exceptions to the no-bail rule?
against him. (1.) Once granted, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a
danger to the community; and
Is a condition in an application for bail that accused be first (2.) There exists a special, humanitarian, and compelling
arraigned before he could be granted bail valid? circumstance, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by
No. In the first place, in cases where it is authorized, bail the highest court in the requesting state when it grants
should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused provisional liberty in extradition cases.
may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the
information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would Enrile’s “social and political standing and his having
then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being
charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape
In the second place, the trial court could ensure the presence from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. We also do not ignore
of accused at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and that at an earlier time many years ago when he had been
ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings, such charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
as arraignment. murder, he already evinced a similar disposition of respect for
the legal processes and was granted bail during the pendency
To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his of his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his
arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has solid reputation in both his public and private lives, his long
to choose between: years of public service, and history’s judgment being at stake,
(1.) Filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on he should be granted bail. The currently fragile state of Enrile’s
bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, health presents another compelling justification for his
his arraignment cannot be held; and admission to bail.”
(2.) Foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can
be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. When is bail deemed automatically cancelled?
These scenarios certainly undermine the accused’s (1.) Acquittal of the accused;
constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid (2.) Dismissal of the case; or
complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime (3.) Execution of the judgment of conviction.
and his right to bail.
Can the right to bail be waived?
Yes.

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Right to bail and right to travel Basco vs. Rapatalo
A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335. March 5, 1997
from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence
of the nature and function of a bail bond. The condition Facts:
imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times
➔ Basco is the father of the murder victim. Later, he saw
whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid
one of the accused roaming around La Union.
restriction on his right to travel. (Manotoc v. CA)
➔ Basco learned that Judge Raptalo approved the
accused’s petition for bail even without hearing.
What is Extradition?
➔ Basco charged Judge Raptalo with gross ignorance or
Extradition is the removal of an accused from the Philippines
willful disregard of established rule of law for granting
with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign
bail to an accused in a murder case without receiving
authorities to enable the requesting state or government to
evidence and conducting a hearing.
hold him in connection with criminal investigation directed
against him or execution of a penalty imposed on him under ➔ Judge Raptalo alleged that he granted the petition for
the penal and criminal law of the requesting state or bail on the prosecutor’s option not to oppose the
government. petition as well as the latter’s recommendation setting
the bailbond in the amount of P80,000. He further
What are the five major postulates in extradition proceedings? averred that when the prosecution chose not to oppose
(1.) Extradition is a major instrument for the suppression of the petition for bail, he had the discretion on whether to
crime; approve it or not.
(2.) The requesting State will accord due process to the ➔ Judge Raptalo declared that when he approved the
accused; petition, he had a right to presume that the prosecutor
(3.) Proceedings are sui generis; knew what he was doing since he was more familiar with
(4.) Compliance shall be in good faith; and the case.
(5.) There is an underlying risk of flight.
Issue: W/N a judge can grant a petition for bail without
Right to bail in an extradition proceeding hearing.
The rule is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases.
However, we believe that the right to due process is broad Held: No. The grant of bail is a matter of right except in cases
enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees. involving capital offenses when the matter is left to the sound
Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe discretion of the court. That discretion lies, not in the
and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested determination whether or not a hearing should be held but,
or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied in the appreciation, and evaluation of the prosecution's
for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and evidence of guilt against the accuse. A hearing is plainly
convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant indispensable before a judge can aptly be said to be in a
will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) position to determine whether the evidence for the
that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling prosecution is weak or strong.
circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited
by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants The discretion lies, not in determining whether or not there
provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. will be a hearing, but in appreciating and evaluating the
weight of the evidence of guilt against the accused.
However, this ruling was modified by the Court when it said
that it cannot ignore the modern trend in public international A hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to
law which places a primacy on the worth of the individual adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and
person and the sanctity of human rights. While the Universal fix bail. The importance of a hearing has been emphasized it
Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty, its principles are is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask
now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of searching questions from which it may infer the strength of
the international community. the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it, against the accused.

Another reason why hearing of a petition for bail is required

is for the court to take into consideration the guidelines set
forth in Section 6, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the
amount of bail. Even if the prosecution fails to adduce
evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an
accused, the court may still require that it answer questions in
order to ascertain not only the strength of the state's evidence
but also the adequacy of the amount of bail.

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
After hearing, the court's order granting or refusing bail must particular instance has not been substantially complied with
contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. On by the respondent Judge.
the basis thereof, the judge should then formulate his own
conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong While it may be true that the respondent judge set the
enough as to indicate the guilt of the accused. Otherwise, the application for bail for hearing three times, thus showing lack
order granting or denying the application for bail may be of malice or bad faith in granting bail to the accused,
invalidated because the summary of evidence for the nonetheless, this does not completely exculpate him because
prosecution which contains the judge's evaluation of the the fact remains that a hearing has not actually been
evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due conducted in violation of his duty to determine whether or
process for both the prosecution and the defense. not the evidence against the accused is strong for purposes
of bail.
It should be stressed at this point, however, that the nature of
the hearing in an application for bail must be equated with its Doctrine: Duty of the courts (or of the trial judge) whenever
purpose. If the prosecution were permitted to conduct a an application for bail is filed before them:
hearing for bail as if it were a full-dress trial on the merits, the (1.) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application
purpose of the proceeding, which is to secure provisional for bail, or require him to submit his recommendation.
liberty of the accused to enable him to prepare for his defense, (2.) Conduct a summary hearing of the application for bail,
could be defeated. At any rate, in case of a summary hearing, regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to
the prosecution witnesses could always be recalled at the trial present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
on the merits. strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise
its sound discretion.
In the light of the applicable rules on bail and the (3.) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is
jurisprudential principles just enunciated, this Court reiterates strong based on the summary of evidence of the
the duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is prosecution.
filed: (4.) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
(1.) Notify the prosecutor of hearing of the application for accused upon the approval of the bail bond. Otherwise,
bail or require him to submit his recommendation; petition should be denied.
(2.) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless
of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
People vs. Judge Donato
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong
G.R. No. 79269. June 5, 1991
for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
sound discretion;
Facts:
(3.) Decide whether the evidence of guilt by the accused is
strong based on the summary of evidence of the ➔ State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, the City
prosecution; and Fiscal of Manila and the Judge a Advocate General, filed
(4.) The guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a
accused upon the approval of bail bond. Otherwise, prayer for restraining order/ preliminary injunction, to
petition should be denied. set aside the order of respondent Judge dated July 7,
1987 granting bail to the accused Rodolfo Salas alias
The above-enumerated procedure should now leave no room "Commander Bilog" for Rebellion.
for doubt as to the duties of the trial judge in cases of bail ➔ And also the subsequent Order dated July 30, 1987
applications. granting the motion for reconsideration of 16 July 1987
by increasing the bail bond from P30,000.00 to
A judge owes it to the public and the administration of justice P50,000.00 but denying petitioner's supplemental
to know the law he is supposed to apply to a given motion for reconsideration of July 17, 1987 which asked
controversy. He is called upon to exhibit more than just a the court to allow petitioner to present evidence in
cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. support of its prayer for a reconsideration of the order of
7 July 1987.
Here, the respondent judge herein insists that he could ➔ At the time the Information was filed the private
exercise his discretion in granting bail to the accused since the respondent and his co-accused were in military custody
Assistant Prosecutor signified in writing that he had no following their arrest on 29 September 1986 at the
objection to the grant of bail and recommended, instead, the Philippine General Hospital, Taft Ave., Manila; he had
bail bond in the sum of P80,000.00. It is to be emphasized that earlier escaped from military detention and a cash
although the court may have the discretion to grant the reward of P250,000.00 was offered for his capture.
application for bail, in cases of capital offenses, the ➔ A day after the filing of the original information, a
determination as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is petition for habeas corpus for private respondent and his
strong can only be reached after due hearing which, in this co-accused was filed with this Court which was dismissed
on the basis of the agreement of the parties under which

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
herein private respondent "will remain in legal custody Rules of Court, as amended. Therefore, before conviction bail
and will face trial before the court having custody over is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right
his person" and the warrants for the arrest of his co- when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower
accused are deemed recalled and they shall be than reclusion perpetua. To that extent the right is absolute.
immediately released but shall submit themselves to the
court having jurisdiction over their person. At the time the original and the amended pieces of
➔ Thereafter, private respondent filed with the court below information for rebellion and the application for bail were
a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that: filed before the court below the penalty imposable for the
(a.) the facts alleged do not constitute an offense; offense for which the private respondent was charged was
(b.) the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense reclusion perpetua to death. During the pendency of the
charged; application for bail Executive Order No. 187 was issued by the
(c.) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the President, by virtue of which the penalty for rebellion as
defendants; and originally provided for in Article 135 of the Revised Penal
(d.) the criminal action or liability has been Code was restored. The restored law was the governing law at
extinguished. the time the respondent court resolved the petition for bail.
➔ Respondent Judge denied the motion to quash.
➔ On May 9, 1987, instead of asking for a reconsideration The 1987 Constitution strengthens further the right to bail by
of said Order, private respondent filed a petition for bail, explicitly providing that it shall not be impaired even when
which herein petitioner opposed in an Opposition on the the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. This
ground that since rebellion became a capital offense overturns the Court's ruling in Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile, et al.,
under the provisions of P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834, supra., to wit: "The suspension of the privilege of the writ of
which amended Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, habeas corpus must, indeed, carry with it the suspension of
by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death the right to bail, if the government's campaign to suppress
on those who promote, maintain, or head a rebellion, the the rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered effective. If the
accused is no longer entitled to bail as evidence of his right to bail may be demanded during the continuance of the
guilt is strong. rebellion, and those arrested, captured and detained in the
course thereof will be released, they would, without the least
➔ On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No.
doubt, rejoin their comrades in the 􏰆eld thereby jeopardizing
187 repealing, among others, P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and
the success of government efforts to bring to an end the
1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of
invasion, rebellion or insurrection."
the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the
amendatory decrees. Thus, the original penalty for
If the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua bail
rebellion, prision mayor and a fine not to exceed
becomes a matter of discretion. It shall be denied if the
P20,000.00, was restored.
evidence of guilt is strong. The court's discretion is limited to
➔ Executive Order No. 187 was published in the Official
determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.
Gazette in its June 15, 1987 issue (Vol. 83, No. 24) which
(Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons [76 Phil. 756, 770] But once
was officially released for circulation on June 26, 1987.
it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail
➔ In his Order of 7 July 1987, respondent Judge, taking into also becomes a matter of right. In the same case, we held: "The
consideration Executive Order No. 187, granted private provision on bail in our Constitution is patterned after similar
respondent's petition for bail, fixed the bail bond at provisions contained in the Constitution of the United States
P30,000.00 and imposed upon private respondent the and that of many states of the Union. And it is said that: 'The
additional condition that he shall report to the court Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the
once every two (2) months within the first ten (10) days many states provide that all persons shall be bailable by
of every period thereof. sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, where the proof
is evident or the presumption of guilt is great, and, under such
Issues: provisions, bail is a matter of right which no court or judge
(1.) Whether the right to bail may, under certain can properly refuse, in all cases not embraced in the
circumstances, be denied to a person who is charged exceptions. Under such provisions bail is a matter of right
with an otherwise bailable offense. even in cases of capital offenses, unless the proof of guilt is
(2.) Whether such right may be waived. evident or the presumption thereof is great!"

Held: (2) Yes, the right to bail may be waived by the accused. It is
(1) The court agrees with the respondent court that bail "competent for a person to waive a right guaranteed by the
cannot be denied to the private respondent for he is charged Constitution, and to consent to action which would be invalid
with the crime of rebellion as defined in Article 134 of the if taken against his will." This Court has recognized waivers of
Revised Penal Code to which is attached the penalty of prison constitutional rights such as, for example, the right against
mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00. It is, therefore, a unreasonable searches and seizures; the right to counsel and
bailable offense under Section 13 of Article III of the 1987 to remain silent; and the right to be heard. Even the 1987
Constitution and provides thus: Section 3, Rule 114 of the

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Constitution expressly recognizes a waiver of rights ➔ The bond for the latter's temporary liberty was initially
guaranteed by its Bill of Rights. Section 12(1) of Article III fixed at P30,000.00 but was later reduced to P25,000.00
thereof on the right to remain silent and to have a competent upon motion of the accused.
and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice states ➔ The latter then put up the required bond; upon its
that these rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the approval, the court ordered his release on 15 December
presence of counsel." This provision merely particularizes the 1983.
form and manner of the waiver; it, nevertheless, clearly ➔ Accused waived his right to preliminary investigation
suggests that the other rights may be waived in some other through his counsel de oficio.
form or manner provided such waiver will not offend Article 6
➔ On 28 February 1985, Accused pleaded not guilty upon
of the Civil Code. We hereby rule that the right to bail is
his arraignment.
another of the Constitutional rights which can be waived. It is
➔ The protracted trial began on 26 June 1985 and ended
a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver
nearly three (3) years later when the case was finally
would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy,
submitted for decision on 22 February 1988.
morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with
a right recognized by law. ➔ On 25 January 1989, the trial court promulgated its
decision convicting the accused of the crime of rape and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Doctrine: The right of the accused to bail is governed by the
Perpetua.
law at the time the court resolved the petition to bail.
➔ On the same day, the accused filed his notice of appeal
wherein he requested that the amount of the appeal
People v. Hernandez bond be fixed by the trial court.
➔ The following day, the trial court gave due course to the
Despite the fact that the accused was already convicted, appeal but did not resolve the request to fix the amount
although erroneously, by the trial court for the complex crime of bail.
of rebellion with multiple murders, arsons and robberies, and
sentenced to life imprisonment, we granted bail in the amount ➔ Thus, on 11 April 1989, the accused filed an "Application
of P30,000.00 during the pendency of his appeal from such for Bail on Appeal" reiterating his earlier request that the
conviction. bail bond for his provisional liberty pending appeal be
set.
To the vigorous stand of the People that We must deny bail to ➔ Said application for bail on appeal was subsequently
the accused because the security of the State so requires, and
denied by the trial court on the ground that ". . . the
because the judgment of conviction appealed from indicates
that the evidence of guilt of Hernandez is strong. accused has already been found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of rape and sentenced
Individual freedom is too basic, too transcendental and vital in to Reclusion Perpetua and his appeal from the decision
a republican state, like ours, to be derived upon mere general already approved by the Court .
principles and abstract consideration of public safety. Indeed, ➔ On 10 August 1989, the trial court issued a Commitment
the preservation of liberty is such a major preoccupation of our
of Final Sentence turning over the person of the accused
political system that, not satisfied with guaranteeing its
enjoyment in the very first paragraph of section (1) of the Bill to the Director of Prisons in Muntinlupa.
of Rights, the framers of our Constitution devoted paragraphs ➔ On 25 August 1989, the accused filed a motion to
(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), reconsider the RTC's 19 June 1989 Order denying his
and (21) of said section (1) to the protection of several aspects application for bail pending appeal, but the same was
of freedom."
denied.
➔ On 9 December 1989, the accused filed with this Court a
People vs. Fortes special civil action for certiorari to set aside the
G.R. No. 90643. June 25, 1993 aforementioned orders of the trial court denying his
application for bail and his motion to reconsider the said
Facts: denial.
➔ On 26 November 1983, Agripino Gine of Barangay ➔ Accused contends that before his conviction by final
Naburacan, Municipality of Matnog, Province of judgment, he enjoys the constitutional presumption of
Sorsogon, accompanied his 13-year old daughter, innocence, and is therefore entitled to bail as a matter of
Merelyn, to the police station of the said municipality to right.
report a rape committed against the latter by the Agustin
Fortes at around 11:00 o'clock in the morning of that day. Issue: Whether or not the accused who is charged with a crime
Following this, the accused was forthwith apprehended. punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial
➔ Finding probable cause to exist after a preliminary court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty is entitled to bail.
examination was conducted, the MCTC issued on 9
December 1983 an order for the arrest of the accused. Held: No. It is clear from Section 13, Article III of the 1987
Constitution 23 and Section 3, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules
of Court, as amended, 24 that:

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
"before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed
discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is coup d' etat that took place on December 1 to 9, 1989.
punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. To ➔ G.R. No. 93177, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
that extent the right is absolute. mandamus, they are questioning the conduct of the Pre-
Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel constituted to investigate
Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is punishable by the charges against them and the creation of the General
reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion. It shall Court Martial (GCM) convened to try them.
be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The court's ➔ G.R. No. 96948, the petitioners, besides challenging the
discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence legality of GCM No. 14, seek certiorari against its ruling
of guilt is strong. But once it is determined that the evidence denying them the right to peremptory challenge as
of guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right." granted by Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408.
➔ G.R. No. 95020, the subject matter we are concerned
The clear implication, therefore, is that if an accused who is with, the orders of the respondent judge of the Regional
charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is Trial Court of Quezon City are assailed on certiorari on
convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a the ground that he has no jurisdiction over GCM No. 14
penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the and no authority either to set aside its ruling denying bail
accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. to the private respondents.

In such a situation, the court would not have only determined Issue: Whether or not the right to bail invoked by the private
that the evidence of guilt is strong — which would have been respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been
sufficient to deny bail even before conviction — it would have recognized and is not available in the military, as an exception
likewise ruled that the accused's guilt has been proven to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights
beyond reasonable doubt.
Held: Yes.
Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the
pendency of his appeal from the judgment of conviction. THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES.
In the instant case, the rape for which the accused was
indicted is punishable by reclusion perpetua pursuant to We find that the right to bail invoked by the private
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code; he was convicted respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been
therefor and subsequently sentenced to serve that penalty. It recognized and is not available in the military, as an exception
is thus evident that the trial court correctly denied his to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. This much
application for bail during the pendency of the appeal. was suggested in Arula, where we observed that "the right to
a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the
Doctrine: If an accused who is charged with a crime right to bail does not exist."
punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial
court and sentenced to suffer such penalty, bail is neither a The justification for this exception was well explained by the
matter of right on the part of the accused not a matter of Solicitor General as follows:
discretion on the part of the court - the application for bail
must be denied. The unique structure of the military should be enough reason
to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on
In People vs. Ricardo Cortez the Court ruled that an accused the right to bail. Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to
who is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable note that mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of
by reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be entitled to bail as a democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms
matter of right even if he appeals the case to this Court since by the government for the discharge of their duties and
his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt of responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from
the offense charged is strong. the people. All other insurgent elements carry out their
activities outside of and against the existing political system.
Comendador vs. De Villa
G.R. No. 93177. August 2, 1991 National security considerations should also impress upon
this Honorable Court that release on bail of respondents
➔ These four cases have been consolidated because they constitutes a damaging precedent. Imagine a scenario of say
involve the same parties and related issues arising from 1,000 putschists roaming the streets of the Metropolis on bail,
the same incident. or if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order were sustained, on
'provisional" bail. The sheer number alone is already
➔ The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 and the
discomforting. But, the truly disquieting thought is that they
private respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454 are
could freely resume their heinous activity which could very
officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing
well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities,

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
including this Honorable Court, and replace the same with a reconsideration was filed by the prosecution but the
system consonant with their own concept of government and same was denied by respondent judge.
justice. ➔ Significantly, the orders granting bail, and that denying
reconsideration thereof, became the subject of a petition
The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail for certiorari filed by the prosecution and were
would violate the equal protection clause is not acceptable. subsequently annulled and set aside by CA.
This guaranty requires equal treatment only of persons or ➔ To support and justify his grant of bail to the accused,
things similarly situated and does not apply where the subject respondent judge avers that time was of the essence,
of the treatment is substantially different from others. The considering that the accused had been detained since
accused officers can complain if they are denied bail and other October 21, 1991 and that the prosecution failed to
members of the military are not. But they cannot say they have interpose an objection to the granting of bail and to ask
been discriminated against because they are not allowed the for an opportunity to prove the strength of the evidence
same right that is extended to civilians. of guilt against the accused

Doctrine: The right to bail is not available to the members of Issue: Whether or not respondent judge was justified in his
the armed forces because of the unique structure of the grant of bail to the accused.
military men. It is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate
within the framework of democratic system, are allowed the Held:
fiduciary use of firearms by the government for the discharge
of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of APPLICATION FOR BAIL SHALL FOLLOW THE 3-DAY MOTION
revenues collected from the people. All other insurgent RULE.
elements carry out their activities outside of and against the
existing political system. Complainant alleges that the prosecution was not given
notice of the petition for bail at least three (3) days prior to
Baylon vs. Judge Sison the scheduled hearing thereof. It bears emphasis that the
A.M. No. 92-7-360-0. April 6, 1995 petition for bail was filed in court and a copy thereof served
on the prosecution on December 21, 1991, a Saturday, and
Facts: was craftily set for hearing on December 23, 1991, thereby
giving the prosecution only one day, a Sunday at that, to
➔ The Office of the City Prosecutor in Dagupan City filed
prepare its opposition thereto. The stratagem employed by
an information for double murder against several
the defense which virtually deprived the prosecution of an
accused and thereafter raffled to respondent judge.
opportunity to adequately counter the representations in its
➔ The accused filed a petition for reinvestigation which was
petition is too obvious to be ignored. Yet respondent judge
granted by the trial court.
condoned the same and aggravated the situation by the
➔ During the reinvestigation, the accused filed a petition unusual and precipitate haste with which the petition was
for bail on a Saturday, and requested that it be set for granted by respondent judge.
hearing the immediately following Monday.
➔ On this latter date, the prosecution filed an opposition On top of that, he exacerbated his disregard of settled rules
to the petition for bail alleging, among others, that the of procedure by justifying his non-observance of the three-
information was filed on the bases of the sworn day notice rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
statements of several eyewitnesses to the incident which on the theory that the petition for bail is an urgent motion
constitutes clear and strong evidence of the guilt of all and may therefore be heard on shorter notice. Such
the accused. ratiocination, which espouses and reveals a distorted notion
➔ While the determination of whether or not the evidence as to the true nature and conditions of the right to bail, does
of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, this violence to the well-established rule of law that bail is not a
discretion may be exercised only after evidence is matter of right and requires a hearing where the accused is
submitted to the court. The prosecution must be given charged with an offense which is punishable by death,
an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Given this
the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the contingency, respondent judge should have carefully
court may resolve the motion for bail. If the prosecution scrutinized the validity of the petition for bail and the veracity
should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a of its allegations, rather than cavalierly considering it outright
violation of procedural due process, and the order of the as an urgent motion.
court granting bail should be considered void on that
ground. There are two main arguments invoked and relied on by
➔ Nevertheless, a hearing on the petition was purportedly respondent judge to support and justify his grant of bail to
held by the trial court and bail was granted for the the accused, namely, that time was of the essence, considering
provisional liberty of each of the accused. A motion for that the accused had been detained since October 21, 1991;
and that the prosecution failed to interpose an objection to

10

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
the granting of bail and to ask for an opportunity to prove the Manotoc Securities, Inc. In due course, corresponding
strength of the evidence of guilt against the accused. criminal charges for estafa were filed. In all cases,
petitioner has been admitted to bail with FGU Insurance
We reject the first tenuous proposition that time was of the Corporation as surety.
essence, since the ambient circumstances obtaining prior to ➔ On March 1, 1982, petitioner filed before each of the trial
the grant of bail could not but have cautioned respondent courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave
judge to be more circumspect in entertaining and resolving the country", stating as ground therefor his desire to go
the petition therefore. to the United States, "relative to his business transactions
and opportunities." The prosecution opposed said
First, the accused were charged with double murder, each of motion and after due hearing, both trial judges denied
which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, hence bail the same.
is not a matter of right.
Issue: W/N the courts have the authority to prevent petitioner
Second, no bail was recommended in the information which from exercising his right to travel, considering that he has
was filed on the bases of the sworn statements of several been admitted to bail
eyewitnesses to the incident, thus constituting clear and
strong evidence of the guilt of all the accused. Held: Yes. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted
to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary
Third, at the time of the application for bail, there was still consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.
pending a reinvestigation of the case being conducted by the
Office of the City Prosecutor. It must be noted that the Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the
reinvestigation was at the instance of the accused themselves, state of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at
hence any resultant delay caused by the conduct thereof is the same time, to put the accused as much under the power
naturally and logically attributable to them. of the court as if he were in custody of the proper officer, and
to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the
And, finally, the guileful setting of the hearing of the petition call of the court and do what the law may require of him.
for bail on December 23, 1991, when the same was filed only
on December 21, 1991 which was a Saturday, readily casts The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself
doubt on the good faith in and the regularity of the procedure available at all times whenever the court requires his presence
adopted by the defense. operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. Indeed, if
the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without
Doctrine: Application for bail shall follow the 3-day motion sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the
rule. The court rejects that time was of the essence, since the courts.
ambient circumstances obtaining prior to the grant of bail
could not but have cautioned respondent judge to be more The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed
circumspect in entertaining and resolving the petition or filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to
therefore. transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials
who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection.
Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of
G.R. No. L-62100. May 30, 1986 the original imprisonment. The sureties become invested with
full authority over the person of the principal and have the
right to prevent the principal from leaving the state.
Facts:
➔ Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two
If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from
principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc.
leaving the state, more so then has the court from which the
and the Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage
sureties merely derive such right, and whose jurisdiction over
house.
the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the
➔ Petitioner, together with his co-stockholders, filed a grant of bail to the latter. In fact, this inherent right of the
petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission court is recognized by petitioner himself, notwithstanding his
for the appointment of a management committee for allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country, for he
Manotoc Securities, Inc. and Trans-Insular Management, would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the
Inc. The petition relative to the Manotoc Securities, Inc. country in the first place, if it were otherwise.
was granted and a management committee was
organized and appointed. The faith reposed by petitioner on People vs. Shepherd is
➔ When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by misplaced. The rather broad and generalized statement
Manotoc Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six suffers from a serious fallacy; for while there is, indeed, neither
of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against law nor jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under
petitioner and the president and vice-president of bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the

11

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
country, it is not for the reason suggested by the appellate Motion," which prayed that petitioner's application for
court. an arrest warrant be set for hearing.
➔ RTC granted the Motion. In that hearing, petitioner
Also, petitioner's case is not on all fours with the Shepherd manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by
case. In the latter case, the accused was able to show the the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case
urgent necessity for her travel abroad, the duration thereof to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
and the conforme of her sureties to the proposed travel ➔ After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to
thereby satisfying the court that she would comply with the submit their respective memoranda. In his
conditions of her bail bond. In contrast, petitioner in this case Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer:
has not satisfactorily shown any of the above. that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post
bail in the amount of P100,000.
Petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed
travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. Petitioner Issue: W/N Jimenez is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty
merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he while the extradition proceedings are pending.
had posted cash indemnities. The court cannot allow the
accused to leave the country without the assent of the surety Held: NO.
because in accepting a bail bond or recognizance, the
government impliedly agrees "that it will not take any Five Postulates of Extradition
proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of The substantive issues raised in this case require an
the sureties or affect their remedies against him. Under this interpretation or construction of the treaty and the law on
rule, the surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be extradition.
discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the conditions
thereof, which is made without his assent. This result has been 1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of
reached as to a stipulation or agreement to postpone the trial Crime.
until after the final disposition of other cases, or to permit the First, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of
principal to leave the state or country." suppressing crime by facilitating the arrest and the custodial
transfer of a fugitive from one state to the other.
Doctrine: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted
to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary With the advent of easier and faster means of international
consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. The travel, the flight of affluent criminals from one country to
condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available another for the purpose of committing crime and evading
at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates prosecution has become more frequent. Accordingly,
as a valid restriction on his right to travel. Indeed, if the governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with
accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries.
sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the
courts. Today, "a majority of nations in the world community have
come to look upon extradition as the major effective
Government of the U.S. vs. Judge Puruganan instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of
G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002, December 17, 2002 crime." It is the only regular system that has been devised to
return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try
Facts: them in accordance with municipal and international law. An
important practical effect… of the recognition of the principle
➔ Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US
that criminals should be restored to a jurisdiction competent
Government requested the extradition of Mark B.
to try and punish them is that the number of criminals seeking
Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.
refuge abroad will be reduced.
➔ The Government of the United States of America,
represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC the
In this era of globalization, easier and faster international
appropriate Petition for Extradition. The Petition alleged
travel, and an expanding ring of international crimes and
that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued
criminals, we cannot afford to be an isolationist state. We
by the United States District Court. The warrant had been
need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our
issued in connection with the following charges: (1)
chances of suppressing crime in our own country.
conspiracy to defraud the United States; (2) tax evasion;
(3) wire fraud; (4) false statements; and (5) illegal
2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the
campaign contributions. In order to prevent the flight of
Accused
Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order
Second, an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties
for his "immediate arrest."
thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each
➔ Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent other's legal system and judicial process. More pointedly, our
Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte duly authorized representative's signature on an extradition

12

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the principle requires that we deliver the accused to the
willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition,
person sought to be extradited. That signature signifies our as set forth in the Treaty, are satisfied.
full faith that the accused will be given, upon extradition to
the requesting state, all relevant and basic rights in the 5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
criminal proceedings that will take place therein; otherwise, Fifth, persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks.
the treaty would not have been signed, or would have been This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement in the
directly attacked for its unconstitutionality. experience of the executive branch: nothing short of
confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the
3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their
Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, extradition to the requesting state.
extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. In criminal
proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at The present extradition case further validates the premise that
fore; in extradition which is sui generis — in a class by itself — persons sought to be extradited have a propensity to flee.
they are not. Indeed, extradition hearings would not even begin, if only the
accused were willing to submit to trial in the requesting
“To begin with, the process of extradition does not involve the country.
determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His
guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state Substantive Issue: Is Respondent Entitled to Bail?
where he will be extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings
rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or As suggested by the use of the word "conviction," the
innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extradite. constitutional provision on bail, as well as Section 4 of Rule
114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been
There are other differences between an extradition arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws.
proceeding and a criminal proceeding. An extradition It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because
proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or
involve a full-blown trial. In contradistinction to a criminal acquittal.
proceeding, the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding
allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. In Moreover, the constitutional right to bail "flows from the
terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who
case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt while a fugitive should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter
may be ordered extradited 'upon showing of the existence of he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved
a prima facie case.' Finally, unlike in a criminal case where beyond reasonable doubt." It follows that the constitutional
judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final, in provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition,
an extradition proceeding, our courts may adjudge an where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.
individual extraditable but the President has the final
discretion to extradite him." The provision in the Constitution stating that the "right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is habeas corpus is suspended" does not detract from the rule
only to determine whether the extradition request complies that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal
with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the person sought is proceedings. The second sentence cannot be taken to mean
extraditable. that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that
are not criminal in nature.
4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.
Fourth, our executive branch of government voluntarily Exceptions to the "No Bail" Rule
entered into the Extradition Treaty, and our legislative branch The rule, we repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right in
ratified it. Hence, the Treaty carries the presumption that its extradition cases. However, the judiciary has the constitutional
implementation will serve the national interest. duty to curb grave abuse of discretion and tyranny, as well as
the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce
Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty constitutional rights. Furthermore, we believe that the right to
promotes comity with the requesting state. On the other due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic
hand, failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints a bad fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right to due process
image of our country before the world community. Such extends to the "life, liberty or property" of every person. It is
failure would discourage other states from entering into "dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for
treaties with us, particularly an extradition treaty that hinges its application."
on reciprocity.
Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe
good faith with our obligations under the Treaty. This and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested

13

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied fact cannot be taken to mean that he will not flee as the
for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and process moves forward to its conclusion, as he hears the
convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant footsteps of the requesting government inching closer and
will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) closer. That he has not yet fled from the Philippines cannot be
that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling taken to mean that he will stand his ground and still be within
circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited reach of our government if and when it matters; that is, upon
by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants the resolution of the Petition for Extradition.
provisional liberty in extradition cases therein.
Doctrine: By the use of the word "conviction," a person has
Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis, been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal
and since it is derived essentially from general principles of laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because
justice and fairness, the applicant bears the burden of proving extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or
the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and acquittal. The constitutional provision on bail will not apply to
emphatic forcefulness. a case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is
not at issue.
Along this line, Jimenez contends that there are special
circumstances that are compelling enough for the Court to Exception – Bail may be applied for and granted as an
grant his request for provisional release on bail. exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that,
once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a
1. Alleged Disenfranchisement danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special,
While his extradition was pending, Respondent Jimenez was humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a
elected as a member of the House of Representatives. On that matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the
basis, he claims that his detention will disenfranchise his requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in
Manila district of 600,000 residents. extradition cases therein.

We are not persuaded. It must be noted that even before Separate Opinions
private respondent ran for and won a congressional seat in BELLOSILLO, J.:
Manila, it was already of public knowledge that the United The Government maintains that an extradition court has no
States was requesting his extradition. Hence, his constituents power to authorize bail in the absence of any law conferring
were or should have been prepared for the consequences of such power; and that the 1987 Constitution, as well as the
the extradition case against their representative, including his Rules of Court, as amended, applies only to persons arrested
detention pending the final resolution of the case. and detained for violation of Philippine Laws, but not to
extradition proceedings in which courts do not render
Also, being a Congressman is not a substantial differentiation. judgments of conviction or acquittal.
The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by
public officers has never been an excuse to free a person The argument is as ingenious as it is fallacious. It is settled that
validly [from] prison. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 the power to admit to bail exists in extradition proceedings,
members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the although as a matter of policy it may only be granted under
24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of "exceptional circumstances."
legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical
absence of one or a few of its members. One of the inherent powers of the judiciary with regard to
proceedings before it has been the admission of a prisoner to
2. Anticipated Delay bail where, in the exercise of his discretion, the judge deems
Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the it advisable.
extradition proceedings are lengthy, it would be unfair to
confine him during the pendency of the case. Again we are Truly, there is neither logic nor persuasion to the suggestion
not convinced. We must emphasize that extradition cases are that bail should only be allowed in criminal cases, or that class
summary in nature. They are resorted to merely to determine of cases where courts must "render judgments of conviction
whether the extradition petition and its annexes conform to or acquittal." Bail as a remedy is available where there is
the Extradition Treaty, not to determine guilt or innocence. deprivation of liberty prior or during trial.
Neither is it, as a rule, intended to address issues relevant to
the constitutional rights available to the accused in a criminal PUNO, J.:
action. I respectfully submit that a potential extraditee can hinge his
right to bail in our Constitution. The mere silence of our
3. Not a Flight Risk? extradition treaty with the United States and our extradition
Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk. To support law (P.D. No. 1069) does not negate the right to bail of a
this claim, he stresses that he learned of the extradition potential extraditee. Our adherence to the Universal
request in June 1999; yet, he has not fled the country. Yet, this Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant

14

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
on Civil and Political Rights, as well as international norms, the request for extradition; (b) upon the filing of the petition
customs and practices support an extraditee's right to bail. But for extradition before the extradition court; or (c) during the
while an extraditee may apply for bail, its grant depends on hearing of the petition for extradition.
presentation of clear and convincing evidence that the
extraditee will not frustrate the ends of justice by fleeing from In all the above circumstances, the issuance of a warrant of
our jurisdiction. Again, I proffer the following propositions: arrest depends on a showing that it will serve the ends of
justice. Initially, it is the burden of the petitioning executive
First. The right to bail inheres from the rights to life, liberty authorities to prove that the warrant against the extraditee
and to due process. There is no reason why an extraditee will serve the ends of justice.
should be denied the right to apply for bail. While an
extradition proceeding is not criminal in nature, it is a harsh Seventh. After the warrant of arrest is issued, the burden of
and extraordinary process. It may involve a restraint of liberty proof on the right to be admitted to bail shifts on the potential
that under some circumstances can be greater than in an extraditee.
ordinary criminal case. For in extradition proceedings, the
extraditee will be transported and tried to another jurisdiction VITUG, J.:
of which laws he may be unfamiliar. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., dissenting:
I submit that we must consider the implications of a ruling
Second. The right of an extraditee to apply for bail should be that in criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the
treated in light of our other treaty obligations, especially accused must be protected, but in a case neither criminal nor
those concerning the promotion and protection of human civil, one which we call "sui generis," basic freedoms become
rights. As members of the family of nations, the Philippines irrelevant and non-available. A non-criminal proceeding, less
and the United States have the responsibility to uphold onerous and repulsive to society than prosecution for crime,
fundamental human rights, and the dignity and worth of the and where the penalty is only to be brought for trial before
human person. They are mandated to establish conditions the court with jurisdiction, is stripped of guarantees and
under which justice and respect for the obligations arising protections given to hard-boiled recidivists pending arrest
from treaties and other sources of international law can be and trial.
maintained.
The absence of logic behind the majority opinion's denial of
Third. There is no customary rule of international law basic rights becomes clearer when it comes to the issue on
prohibiting bail in extradition cases. At present, there is no the right to bail. The reason given for the denial of the right
customary norm prohibiting bail in extradition cases. On the to bail is not merely deceptive; it has dangerous implications.
contrary, most countries, including Canada, Australia, the It states that the constitutional provision on bail applies only
United Kingdom, South Africa and Pakistan, among others, when a person has been arrested and detained for violation
allow a potential extraditee to be released on bail. Members of Philippine Criminal Law. The reasoning states, that ergo, the
of the European Union have recently ratified the European right to bail does not exist in non-criminal prosecutions. The
Convention on Extradition, which also provides a procedure absence of a constitutional provision on the right to bail of a
for bail. person subject to extradition is simply based on the fact that
the idea of incarcerating a person for something other than
Fourth. Even the United States grants bail to an extraditee, crime never occurred to the framers of the Constitution. There
albeit in exceptional circumstances. can be no forcible detention in non-criminal situations.
Incarceration for something not related to crime would be
Fifth. While an extraditee may apply for bail, its grant is arbitrary detention or illegal detention. It could even be
discretionary depending on whether it will frustrate the ends slavery or involuntary servitude. In all these cases, the issue of
of justice. bail does not arise. If we insist on classifying extradition as a
proceeding not covered by the protections given to accused
Whether or not a potential extraditee is a flight risk is persons, we should rule that bail is not provided because the
determined by two factors: (1) capacity to flee; and (2) intent respondent is not supposed to be imprisoned. There is no
to flee. The combination of these two factors determines the need for bail because the detention is illegal in cases not
degree of risk that the trial court must assess and weigh. related to crime. Extradition cases may not be criminal in
nature. But they assist and precede criminal prosecutions.
Sixth. The burden of proof to justify the arrest and detention
of the potential extraditee initially rests on the petitioning
executive authorities.

Under our extradition treaty and law, a potential extraditee

may be arrested and detained under any of the following
circumstances: (a) upon the receipt of the request for the
arrest of the potential extraditee and even before the filing of

15

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Government of Hong Kong vs. Olalia However, the modern trend in PIL is that we now put primacy
G.R. No. 153675. April 19, 2007 on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of
human rights. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after WWII
Facts: resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual
defendants for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The
➔ Munoz was charged before the HK Court with 3 counts
Nuremberg Principle basically, also, persecuted Serbian
of the offense of accepting an advantage as agent, in
leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity; hence,
violation of Section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery
showing that the individual person is now a valid subject of
Ordinance, Cap. 201 of HK. He also faces 7 counts of the
international law. So, mej kailangan pa may ma-hold intro trial
offense of conspiracy to defraud.
na mga Nazi para lang masabi na importante ang buhay ng
➔ PH DOJ received a request from the HK DOJ for the
tao ganern. Anyway!
provisional arrest of Munoz. This was forwarded by the
PH DOJ to the NBI, which the latter forwarded to the RTC.
December 10, 1948 – The UN adopted the UDHR, here the
➔ The RTC issued an Order of Arrest. On the same day, NBI
right to life, liberty, and property were finally codified (yes, it
Agents arrested and detained Munoz.
took WWII pa for them talaga to realize that ano). Although,
➔ Munoz questioned the validity of the order of arrest, to kahit hindi naman treaty yung UDHR, the principles contained
which the appellate court agreed to by rendering such in this declaration are now recognized as customarily binding
void. upon the members of the international community. Thus, in
➔ DOJ filed a petition for review on certiorari to the SC, the case of Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons, the Court granted
praying that the decision of the CA be reversed. bail to a deportee.
➔ The SC granted the petition of the DOJ and sustained the
validity of the order arrest. 1966 – The UN adopted the ICCPR, which the Philippines
➔ Meanwhile, HK has already filed with the RTC a petition signed, ratified into law, but does not follow CHAROT. Here,
for extradition of Munoz. Here, Munoz filed a petition for the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due process were
bail which was opposed by HK. finally enshrined.
➔ Thus, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an order denying the
petition for bail on the ground that there is no Philippine Therefore, due to the UDHR and the ICCPR, the Philippines
Law granting bail in extradition cases and that private has the responsibility of protecting the right of every person
respondent is a high “flight risk”. to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained or
arrested can participate in the proceedings before the court,
Issue: W/N a prospective extraditee may be granted bail. to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the
detention and order of their release, if justified.
Held: Yes.
Or in other words, persons under detention are guaranteed
Before we answer the issue in this case, let us discuss the these remedies to make sure that their fundamental right to
liberty, including the right to be admitted to bail is protected.
historical background.

In U.S. vs. Purganan, former Chief Justice Panganiban said that If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no
the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition
extradition proceedings as it is only available in criminal cases.
proceedings. This was based on the fact that the word
conviction applies only when a person has been arrested and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) applies to
detained for violation of Philippine Criminal Laws. Thus, it deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked
does not apply to extradition proceedings since extradition in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative
courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person
detained is not in issue.
Further, CJ Panganiban discussed that the constitutional right
to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail
every abused who should not be subjected to the loss of in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various
freedom, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for
Therefore, it follows that the constitutional provision on bail the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these
will not apply to extradition cases, where the presumption of treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus,
innocence is not at issue. the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every
individual is not impaired.
Basically, what they were saying before was that extradition
cases are not criminal cases. Thus, they may not file a petition According to Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
for bail. 1069, extradition is the removal of an accused from the
Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of

16

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the
government to hold him in connection with any criminal standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
investigation directed against him or the execution of a While administrative in character, the standard of substantial
penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply
the requesting state or government. Moreover, it is the right given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the
of a foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender prospective extraditee from freeing our jurisdiction.
of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial
jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice,
surrender him to the demanding state. now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new
standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence"
Extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Even if the potential should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According
extraditee is a criminal, an extradition proceeding is not by its to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond
nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a crime, even reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
though such punishment may follow extradition. It is sui evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and
generis. convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide
with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.
While extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is
characterized by the following: Thus, in this case, there is no showing that private respondent
(a.) It entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk.
potential extraditee; and Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court
(b.) The means employed to attain the purpose of extradition to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail
is also "the machinery of criminal law." on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."

This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Doctrine: A potential extraditee is entitled to bail. Being a
Extradition Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and signatory to the ICCPR, the Philippines does not have any right
temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best serve to diminish the right to deprive an extraditee of his right to
the interest of justice." We further note that Section 20 allows apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is
the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for the satisfactorily met.
"provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the
request for extradition;" and that release from provisional
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan
arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the
G.R. No. 213847. August 18, 2015
accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently."

Facts:
An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative,
bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee ➔ The Ombudsman charged Enrile and several others with
may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, plunder for allegedly being involved in the PDAF scam.
and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the ➔ Enrile prayed that he be allowed to post bail should
proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step probable cause be found against him.
in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the ➔ However, the Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motion on
detention should be reasonable. the ground of prematurity since Enrile had not yet
voluntarily surrendered or been placed under the
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands custody of the law. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan
that the Philippines honor its obligations under the ordered the arrest of Enrile. When the warrant of arrest
Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special was issued, Enrile voluntarily surrendered.
Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these ➔ Enrile argued that he should be allowed to post bail
obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats because:
the purpose of extradition. However, it does not necessarily  The prosecution had not yet established that the
mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the evidence of his guilt was strong;
Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee's rights to  Although he was charged with plunder, the
life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are penalty as to him would only be reclusion
guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by temporal, and not reclusion perpetua; and
international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party.  He was not a flight risk, and his age and physical
We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to condition must be considered.
apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is ➔ The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motion to fix bail.
satisfactorily met.
Issue: W/N Enrile may be entitled bail.
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of
proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the Held: Yes.

17

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT: In resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged
The general rule is, any person, before being convicted of any with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial judge is expected to
capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. Catral:
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is (1.) In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of
strong. Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest, or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
is detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can application for bail or require him to submit his
claim the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of recommendation;
Rights, and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged (2.) Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of
with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with the application for bail regardless of whether or not the
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the
his guilt is strong. Once it has been established that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling
evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be recognized. the court to exercise its sound discretion;
(3.) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based
BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION: on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
On the other hand, the granting of bail is discretionary: (4.) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
(1.) Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable accused upon the approval of the bail bond. Otherwise
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or petition should be denied.
(2.) If the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances In this case, Enrile has averred in his Motion to Fix Bail the
enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is presence of two mitigating circumstances that should be
present, as follows: appreciated in his favor, namely:
(a.) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual (1.) That he was already over 70 years at the time of the
delinquent, or has committed the crime alleged commission of the offense; and
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; (2.) That he voluntarily surrendered.
(b.) That he has previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the The Court is further mindful of the Philippines' responsibility
conditions of his bail without valid justification; in the international community arising from the national
(c.) That he committed the offense while under commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human
probation, parole, or conditional pardon; Rights to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as
(d.) That the circumstances of his case indicate the value the worth and dignity of every person. In other words,
probability of flight if released on bail; or the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make
(e.) That there is undue risk that he may commit available to every person under detention such remedies
another crime during the pendency of the appeal. which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These
remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.
For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases This national commitment to uphold the fundamental human
involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable with rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in
discretion of the trial court. Such discretion may be exercised criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and
only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt convincing showing:
of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should (1.) That the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to
be granted provisional liberty. It is axiomatic, therefore, that the community; and
bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter of discretion (2.) That there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
on the part of the trial court unless there has been a hearing circumstances.
with notice to the Prosecution.
The currently fragile state of Enrile's health presents another
SUMMARY HEARING: compelling justification for his admission to bail, but which
The hearing, which may be either summary or otherwise, in the Sandiganbayan did not recognize.
the discretion of the court, should primarily determine
whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is Dr. Gonzales attested that the following medical conditions,
strong. singly or collectively, could pose significant risks to the life of
Enrile, to wit:
For this purpose, a summary hearing means: “such brief and (1.) Uncontrolled hypertension, because it could lead to
speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of brain or heart complications, including recurrence of
guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of stroke;
hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence
for purposes of bail.”

18

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
(2.) Arrhythmia, because it could lead to fatal or non-fatal Doctrine: Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused,
cardiovascular events, especially under stressful regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed
conditions; independently of the merits of the charge, provided his
(3.) Coronary calcifications associated with coronary artery continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his
disease, because they could indicate a future risk for health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail
heart attack under stressful conditions; and despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true
(4.) Exacerbations of ACOS, because they could be triggered objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.
by certain circumstances (like excessive heat, humidity, Moreover, unless the allowance of bail is forbidden by law in
dust or allergen exposure) which could cause a the particular case, the illness of the prisoner, independently
deterioration in patients with asthma or COPD. of the merits of the case, is a circumstance, and the humanity
of the law makes it a consideration which should, regardless
Based on foregoing, there is no question at all that Enrile's of the charge and the stage of the proceeding, influence the
advanced age and ill health required special medical court to exercise its discretion to admit the prisoner to bail.
attention. His confinement at the PNP General Hospital, albeit
at his own instance, was not even recommended by the
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE LEONEN
officer-in-charge and the internist doctor of that medical
The grant of bail is a special accommodation for petitioner. It
facility because of the limitations in the medical support at
is based on a ground never raised before the Sandiganbayan
that hospital.
or in the pleadings filed before this court. The Sandiganbayan
should not be faulted for not shedding their neutrality and
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the
impartiality. It is not the duty of an impartial court to find what
crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits
it deems a better argument for the accused at the expense of
of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly
the prosecution and the people they represent. The allegation
shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life.
that petitioner suffers from medical conditions that require
Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life
very special treatment is a question of fact. We cannot take
would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration
judicial notice of the truth contained in a certification coming
during the trial.
from one doctor. This doctor has to be presented as an expert
witness who will be subjected to both direct and cross-
Granting bail to Enrile on the foregoing reasons is not
examination so that he can properly manifest to the court the
unprecedented as the Court has already held in Dela Rama v.
physical basis for his inferences as well as the nature of the
The People's Court that unless allowance of bail is forbidden
medical condition of petitioner. Rebutting evidence that may
by law in the particular case, the illness of the prisoner,
be presented by the prosecution should also be considered.
independently of the merits of the case, is a circumstance, and
Worse, it puts pressure on all trial courts and the
the humanity of the law makes it a consideration which
Sandiganbayan that will predictably be deluged with motions
should, regardless of the charge and the stage of the
to fix bail on the basis of humanitarian considerations. They
proceeding, influence the court to exercise its discretion to
will have to decide whether this is applicable only to those
admit the prisoner to bail.
who are in special detention facilities and not to the aging or
sick detainees in overcrowded detention facilities all over this
It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to
country. Not only is this contrary to the Rule of Law, it also
Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be
undermines the legitimacy and the stability of our entire
properly addressed and better attended to by competent
judicial system.
physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid
in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more
The mandatory character of a bail hearing was first addressed
importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the
in the 1945 case of Herras Teehankee v. Rovira where this
trial.
court ordered the People's Court to conduct a bail hearing
despite the accused being charged with a capital offense. This
The Court thus balances the scales of justice by protecting the
court reasoned that "the hearing is for the purpose of
interest of the People through ensuring his personal
enabling the People's Court to exercise its sound discretion as
appearance at the trial, and at the same time realizing for him
to whether or not under the Constitution and laws in force,
the guarantees of due process as well as to be presumed
petitioner is entitled to provisional release under bail." A year
innocent until proven guilty.
later, this court clarified its orders to the People's Court and
gave the following instructions:
Thus, the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of
(1.) In capital cases like the present, when the prosecutor
bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial;
does not oppose the petition for release on bail, the
and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the
court should, as a general rule, in the proper exercise of
fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. As such, the
its discretion, grant the release after the approval of the
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying
bail which it should fix for the purpose;
Enrile's Motion to Fix Bail.
(2.) But if the court has reasons to believe that the special
prosecutor's attitude is not justified, it may ask him

19

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
questions to ascertain the strength of the state's crimes. It only implies that any arrest or detention must be
evidence or to judge the adequacy of the amount of bail; carried out in a dignified and humane manner.
(3.) When, however, the special prosecutor refuses to answer
any particular question on the ground that the answer The majority opinion cites Government of Hong Kong Special
may involve a disclosure imperiling the success of the Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia, Jr. as basis for the grant
prosecution or jeopardizing the public interest, the court of bail on humanitarian reasons. However, Government of
may not compel him to do so, if and when he exhibits a Hong Kong does not apply to this case because the issue was
statement to that effect of the Solicitor General, who, as on whether bail could apply to extradition cases. This court
head of the Office of Special Prosecutors, is vested with stated that because of the Universal Declaration of Human
the direction and control of the prosecution, and may Rights, whose principles are now embodied in the
not, even at the trial, be ordered by the court to present Constitution, bail applies to all instances where an accused is
evidence which he does not want to introduce— detained pending trial, including administrative proceedings
provided, of course, that such refusal shall not prejudice such as extradition. This court, however, does not state that
the rights of the defendant or detainee. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mandates that bail
must be granted in instances where the accused is of
We have held in Herras Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons, that advanced age and frail health.
all persons shall before conviction be bailable except when
the charge is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is It is true that the Constitution is replete with provisions on
strong. The general rule, therefore, is that all persons, whether both the respect for human dignity and the protection of
charged or not yet charged, are, before their conviction, human rights. There is, of course, no reason for these rights
entitled to provisional release on bail, the only exception and the invocation of human dignity not to be applicable to
being where the charge is a capital offense and the evidence Senators of our Republic. However, the mere invocation of the
of guilt is found to be strong. At the hearing of the application broadest concept of human rights is not shibboleth. It should
for bail, the burden of showing that the case falls within the not be cause for us to be nonchalant about the existence of
exception is on the prosecution, according to Rule 110, other constitutional and statutory provisions and the norms in
section 7. The determination of whether or not the evidence our Rules of Court. The mere invocation of human rights does
of guilt is strong is, as stated in the Herras Teehankee case, a not mean that the Rule of Law is suspended. Human rights are
matter of judicial discretion. This discretion, by the very nature best entrenched with the Rule of Law. Suspending the
of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is applicability of clear legal provisions upon the invocation of
submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is human rights compels this court to do a more conscious and
directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot rigorous analysis of how these provisions violate specific
properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before binding human rights norms. The majority opinion fails in this
the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial respect. Liberty is indeed a cherished value. It is an intrinsic
discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to part of our humanity to fight for it and ensure that it allows all
the court, the petitioner having the right of cross-examination of us to lead the kind of lives that we will consider meaningful.
and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. Mere affidavits This applies to petitioner as accused. Yet it also applies with
or recital of their contents are not sufficient since they are equal force to all the individuals in our communities and in
mere hearsay evidence, unless the petitioner fails to object this society. Our collective liberty, the kind that ensures our
thereto. individual and collective meaningful existence, is put at risk if
justice is wanting. Special privileges may be granted only
The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion under clear, transparent, and reasoned circumstances.
when it failed to release petitioner on bail for medical or Otherwise, we accept that there are just some among us who
humanitarian reasons. Petitioner did not ask that bail be are elite. Otherwise, we concede that there are those among
granted because of his medical condition or for humanitarian us who are powerful and networked enough to enjoy
reasons. Neither petitioner nor the prosecution as respondent privileges not shared by all. This dissent rages against such a
developed their arguments on this point at the premise. It is filled with discomfort with the consequences of
Sandiganbayan or in this court to establish the legal and the majority's position. It cannot accept any form of impunity.
factual basis for this special kind of bail in this case. Yet, it now
becomes the very basis for petitioner's grant of bail.

There are no specific and binding international law provisions

that compel this court to release petitioner given his medical
condition. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, relied
upon in the majority opinion, is a general declaration to
uphold the value and dignity of every person. It does not
prohibit the arrest of any accused based on lawful causes nor
does it prohibit the detention of any person accused of

20

POLI RECIT Qs / ARTICLE III, SECTION 13

KA-POLI NOTES 2020-2021
Dione Maghirang / Lara Murallos / Tin Narne-Pedralvez / Fergie Villanueva