Section 13 Right To Bail

Question 1

Section 13 Codal provision

Answer 1

Right to Bail. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. The right to bail shall
not be impaired even when the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Question 2

: The rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5) provides that such rules “shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Since on crimes punished by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong is non-bailable under the Constitution, how can the Supreme Court add crimes punishable by death and life imprisonment, as well? Is it not actually modifying our substantive
right guaranteed by the Constitution in such a way by providing more instances when bail is no longer a matter of right?

Answer 2

The Supreme Court ruled, under Rule 114 on Bail, that actually it
is not a violation for the reason that xxx reclusion perpetua – those
punishable with RP is not allowed bail, I think there seems to be no problem
that we will not allow those who are with offenses punishable by death
because death, definitely, is higher than RP.

Question 3

Why do we allow people to post bail?

Answer 3

Presumption of Innocence – until such time that you
are convicted

Question 4

Purpose of Bail

Answer 4

Bail is intended to ensure his appearance
during trial.

Question 5

four (4) Forms of
Bail allowable:

Answer 5

1. Cash bond – you can go to court and deposit it
2. Property Bond – but you have to be certain that this applies
   only to real property, it will not apply to personal property
3. Surety – this is some kind of an insurance. There are only
   certain companies which are authorized by the Supreme
   Court to serve as a surety. Meaning that in the event that
   you pay some kind of a premium to this insurance company,
   in the event that you jump bail, that surety will answer for
   the cash bond which is stated in the Information
4. Recognizance – you allow this only to small offenses.

Question 6

When is bail a matter of right?

Answer 6

1. Before or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC
   (by First Level Courts) while the case is on appeal
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense
   punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death
   3.Before conviction by the RTC for an offense
   punishable with reclusion perpetua or death when
   the evidence of guilt is not strong.

Question 7

When Bail is Not Allowed

Answer 7

1. After final judgment by any court; (meaning after the lapse of 15 days without filing an appeal)
   2.Before conviction for an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, where the evidence of guilt is strong;
2. After conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or death while the case is on appeal.
3. After conviction for an offense with the penalty exceeding six years but not more than 20 years (added by the Rules of
   Court), if; Accused is a recidivist, quasi recidivist, habitual delinquent or has committed a crime aggravated by reiteracion; Accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement. Accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or conditional pardon; Circumstances of accused or his case indicate the probability of flight; There is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, accused may commit another crime.

Question 8

Accused, former Governor of Palawan, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of violation of Sec. 3I of RA No. 3019. He was sentenced to 6 years and 1 day to 8 years of imprisonment. Initially, the Sandiganbayan allowed him to post bail while the case was on appeal before the Supreme Court but recalled its order after the Prosecution moved for reconsideration. The
Sandiganbayan cited as grounds his failure to appear when required by the court and the probability of flight. Is the Sandiganbayan correct?

Answer 8

Yes. Rule 114, Section 5 specifically provides that, although the grant of bail is discretionary in non capital offenses, nevertheless, when imprisonment has been imposed on the convicted accused in excess of six (6) years and circumstances exist (inter alia, where the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement or evaded sentence, or there is an undue risk that the accused may commit another crime while his appeal is pending), then the accused must be denied bail, or his bail previously granted should be cancelled. In this case, Reyes was a fugitive and was arrested with his brother in Thailand in connection with a murder charge. He also failed to show up on two (2) scheduled hearings.

Question 9

When Bail is a Matter of Discretion

Answer 9

After conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death if no circumstance mentioned in [SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94] Rule 114 of the Rules of Court are present

Question 10

Is there a right to bail in extradition?

Answer 10

Yes. It is not limited to criminal
proceedings.

Question 11

State whether the following are constitutional: (2) A law
denying persons charged with crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death the right to bail.

Answer 11

Unconstitutional, only when the evidence of guilt is strong should it be
denied. The Constitution tells us that bail can only be denied when the
evidence of guilt is strong. If Congress passes a law without making any
distinction whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not- this is
unconstitutional. That will be restricting our right under the Constitution.
Congress has no business to restrict the right further.

Question 12

State with reasons whether bail is a matter of right or a matter
of discretion in the following cases:
A. the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua and the
accused is a minor.

Answer 12

Yes, the penalty will be lowered, it is not reclusion perpetua. It is a matter of right. Remember in the Revised Penal Code, if the accused be a minor he will be sentenced to a penalty one degree lower. Hence if the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua he will be sentenced now to reclusion temporal. He will be entitled to bail as a matter of right.
In the hearing for bail you are not allowed to prove any mitigating
circumstance except when accused is a minor.

Question 13

: State with reasons whether bail is a matter of right or a matter
of discretion in the following cases:The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and
the accused is a minor

Answer 13

And in
special laws, you do not apply mitigating or aggravating circumstance. It does
not matter if you are a minor. You will not be allowed to post bail, minority
is not an issue in a special law.
Mitigating circumstance of the Revised Penal Code generally is not applicable
to special laws.

Question 14

After conviction for homicide on a charge of murder and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Answer 14

if; Accused is a recidivist, quasi recidivist, habitual delinquent or has committed a crime aggravated by reiteracion; Accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement. Accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or conditional pardon; Circumstances of accused or his case indicate the probability of flight; There is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, accused may commit another crime.
If none is present, it will be a matter of discretion

Question 15

After conviction by the RTC for a crime punishable with prision mayor where accused was previously granted absolute pardon in previous
conviction.

Answer 15

A matter of discretion on the RTC judge.

Question 16

Where bail is a matter of right, can the judge hold a hearing to
determine whether he should be allowed bail or not.

Answer 16

Where bail is a matter of right, the judge cannot hold a hearing to
determine whether he should be allowed bail or not.

Accordingly, the prosecution does not have the right to present evidence for the denial of bail in the instances where bail is a matter of right. However, in the cases where the grant of bail is discretionary, due process requires that
the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable
time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should
resolve the motion for bail.

Question 17

Is bail available to military men facing court martial proceedings for violation of the Articles of War.

Answer 17

No. Comendador v. De Villa A soldier can be charged before a court martial
but this is only for violation of the Articles of War and not the Revised Penal
Code. Here you are not allowed to post bail. However if you are charged
before a civil court for example mutiny, like Sen. Trillanes, it will be a different
matter, the ordinary rules of bail will apply. If the penalty is bailable as a
matter of right, you can post bail.
The Supreme Court here stated that:
* first, you must be a military man
* second, you are facing court martial proceedings [not a civilian
court]
* third, it is for violation of the Articles of War
The crimes in the Articles of War are different from the crimes in
the RPC. For example, insubordination, running before enemy fire.
However if you are charged before a civil court for example mutiny, like Sen.
Trillanes, it will be a different matter, the ordinary rules of bail will apply. If
the penalty is bailable as a matter of right, you can post bail.

Question 18

May the right to bail be waived?

Answer 18

Bail can be waived expressly in writing or impliedly by not pursuing
one’s petition for bail.
Express waiver is very simple.
The waiver is not contrary to law, public morals, and policy. Bail, as a right, belongs to the accused. The public has no interest in it. So, if you waive it, it is not contrary to law, public policy.
In the case of Manes,
The Supreme Court said that by not pursuing your application before the trial court, you have waived it. So, it can be waived also impliedly.

Question 19

Jinggoy Estrada, son of former President Estrada, was charged with Plunder,a non-bailable offense. After hearing his petition for bail, the Sandiganbayan
ruled that the evidence of guilt is not strong and allowed him to post bail.
The Ombudsman challenge the order before the Supreme Court. Where the
evidence of guilt is not strong, may the court nevertheless deny an accused the right to bail? In the case of accused, is there a risk of flight as to justify denial of bail?

Answer 19

Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is great. Here, ever since the promulgation of the assailed Resolutions a little more than four (4) years ago, Jinggoy does not, as determined by Sandiganbayan, seem to be a flight risk. Bearing in mind his conduct, social standing and his other personal circumstances, the possibility of his escape in this case seems remote if not nil. The likelihood of escape on his part is now almost nil, given his election
on May 10, 2004, as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. The Court takes stock of the fact that those who usually jump bail are shadowy characters mindless of their reputation in the eyes of the people for as long
as they can flee from the retribution of justice. On the other hand, those with a reputation and a respectable name to protect and preserve are very unlikely to jump bail. The Court, to be sure, cannot accept any suggestion that someone who has a popular mandate to serve as Senator is harboring any
plan to give up his Senate seat in exchange for becoming a fugitive from justice.

Question 20

Johann was charged with rape. After the prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to
bail and filed a motion therefor, which was denied outright by the judge.
Johann claims that he is entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the judge should not have denied his motion to fix bail outright. Is he correct?

Answer 20

Actually, both of them are wrong.
Take note here, the charge is rape. The penalty is reclusion perpetua so bail
is not a matter of right, especially if the evidence of guilt is strong.
However the judge is also wrong in denying it outright. In actual procedure,
the accused [[transcriber’s note: I think Judge meant “prosecution”] will
present evidence and the prosecution will have the burden of proof to show
that the evidence of guilt is strong as required by the Constitution then the
accused should be given a chance to present evidence that it is not strong.
The prosecution presented several witnesses.
The Judge should have allowed Johan to present evidence that his guilt is
not strong only then can he determine whether the accused may be granted bail or not. Not only when one side has presented evidence. Here, the judge immediately determined that the evidence was strong without h

Question 21

May an alien invoke the constitutional right
to bail during the pendency of deportation proceedings?

Answer 21

In Harvey vs Santiago, the Supreme Court stated that in deportation (meaning, pending deportation, while you are still detained to determine whether you should be deported or
not), you are not entitled to bail because it is not a criminal proceeding.

Question 22

JC, a major in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is facing
prosecution before the RTC of Quezon City of the murder of his neighbor
whom he suspected to have molested his 15 year old daughter.
Is JC entitled to bail? Why or why not?

Answer 22

Take note that he is not facing a case before a court martial for violation of Articles of War. It is before a regular court for murder. The question is, is he entitled to bail? This will now depend on whether the evidence of guilt is
strong because the penalty for murder is perpetua. If it is strong, he should not be allowed bail. He should be allowed bail if the evidence is not strong.