PROCEDURE FOR BAIL

[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1464. July 26, 1999]

EUSEBIO GO, VIRGILIO MANIPUD, JESSICA VILORIA, RODOR S. GAYAO and RAUL
GONZALES vs. JUDGE BENJAMIN A. BONGOLAN, Retired, RTC, Branch 2, Bangued,
Abra and JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, Branch 58, Bucay, Abra
PUNO, J.: A petition for bail was filed by several accused for the crime of kidnapping with
ransom. The prosecution in its opposition alleged that the petition is prematurely filed since they
are still in the process of presenting further evidence to prove that the crime had been
committed by the accused. Nonetheless, Judge Bolongan decided the petition, favoring the
accused, based on the evidence presented presuming that the prosecution already adopted the
evidence it had adduced in the regular trial when they declined to present additional evidence
against a previous motion of the accused seeking to amend the information against them.
Moreover, the Judge, in his comment, contended that it is not necessary for the prosecution to
present all its witnesses before a motion for bail could be resolved. Thus, he deemed that it was
unnecessary to have further hearings. Prosecution alleged that the Judge must be
administratively charged for its failure to conduct hearings on the application for bail.
ISSUE: W/N the Judge can decide on a petition for bail without a bail hearing.
HELD: It is mandatory for a Judge to conduct a bail hearing before deciding a petition for bail to
give the prosecution a reasonable time to present its evidence to show that the evidence of guilt
is strong against the applicants. The decision is prematurely resolved when it was decided in
ignorance of the supposed presentation of witnesses by the prosecution. In a bail application,
the right of the accused for the application for a temporary liberty and the right the State to
protect the people from danger must be balanced. Such balance is observed when hearings are
conducted to guide the discretion of the magistrate.

G.R. No. 115407

August 28, 1995
MIGUEL P. PADERANGA, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGALADO, J.: A petition for bail was filed by one of the co-conspirator in a crime of multiple
murders. In the trial, only the Assistant Prosecutor appeared for the prosecution despite
accuseds distribution of copies of the motion to the State Prosecutor and Regional State
Prosecutor. The Assistant informed the trial court, upon the directive of their chief, that the
prosecution was neither supporting nor opposing the application for bail and that they were
submitting it to the sound discretion of the trail judge. He also waived any further presentation of
evidence. The trial court admitted the petitioner to bail. The prosecution elevated the issue to
the CA which annulled the admission to bail; hence, the petitioner appeals to reinstate the lower
courts decision. The prosecution contended that they were not given ample time to oppose the
application for bail procedure for bail was violated when the trial court allowed the Assistant
Prosecutor to appear in behalf of the prosecution instead of the State Prosecutor who is claimed
to be the sole government prosecutor authorized to handle the case. They further claim that the
Assistant had no authority to answer the inquiries of the trial court.
ISSUE: W/N the prosecution was not afforded equal opportunity to oppose the application for
bail; rendering procedural due process violated.
HELD: No, the Assistant Prosecutor could validly represent the prosecution because there was
a previous authorization given by the State prosecutor to the former as a collaborating
prosecutor in the original criminal case which was continuing unless expressly withdrawn. It was
found out that the authorization was only withdrawn after the assistants authority was
questioned. Thus, there was no denial or violation of procedural due process because the
prosecution was given a reasonable opportunity to present all of its evidence before resolution
of the application; however they choose not by an express waiver.

G.R. No. 135045

December 15, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. IRENEO GAKO, JR. (Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 5, Cebu City) and VICENTE GO
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: Private respondent was accused as co-conspirator in the crime of
murder. Due to an illness, he was confined in a hospital by virtue of a motion for confinement. A
clinical summary of his illness was filed alongside with a petition for bail. The case was then reraffled and was assigned to the respondent Judge which granted the bail relying on the medical
records and the records of the original case without having to go on further hearing. The
prosecution sought to inhibit respondent Judge for pre-judging the evidence without carefully
evaluating why it cannot sustain a conviction of life imprisonment.
ISSUE: W/N petition for bail can be decided based on records of the case alone.
HELD: When bail is discretionary, a hearing should be conducted first to determine whether the
evidence is strong to convict or not. It may even be in form of a summary hearing, in a brief and
speedy method of receiving and considering substantial evidence to determine the weight of
evidence for granting bail or not, avoiding unnecessary examination and cross examination.
However in this case, there was no hearing at all. It is inconceivable that respondent Judge
have appreciated the strength or weakness of the evidence of guilt of the accused without
hearing the prosecution side. Reliance on voluminous records of the case would not suffice. The
prosecution is entitled to present substantial evidence because it is equally entitled to due
process.

When May Be Invoked

G.R. No. 129670
February 1, 2000
MANOLET O. LAVIDES, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ROSALINA L.
LUNA PISON, Judge Presiding over Branch 107, RTC, Quezon City; and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
MENDOZA, J.: Petitioner was accused for the crime of child abuse under several information
filed against him. No bail was recommended by the prosecution but he still filed separate
application for bail on the different cases charged against him. The trial court granted the
application in all of the cases in the condition, among others, that the approval of the bail bonds
shall be made only after arraignment to ensure his presence at it and for the trial to proceed
even if he becomes absent during the course.
ISSUE: W/N right to bail may only be invoked after arraignment.
HELD: The trial court is wrong in its theory that there should be an arraignment first before bail
could be granted. In cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment,
otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash the information against
him. If the motion to quash was granted, then an arraignment would not be needed anymore.
The trial court could even ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment by granting bail
and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings under Rule 114 Sec 2(b) requiring
the presence of the accused whenever required and under Rule 116 Sec 1(b) requiring the
accused to appear at the arraignment.

G.R. No. L-29676

December 24, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, as Presiding
Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch); MARIO
HENSON y DE GUZMAN; RAFAEL GONZALES y SINCHONGCO; ANGEL MENDOZA y
MARQUEZ; ROGELIO LAZARO y MAURICIO, and BIENVENIDO WIJANGCO
CAPISTRANO, J.: Private respondents were accused for committing murder. It was agreed by
both parties to be considered in the course of a regular trial instead of a summary proceeding.
On trial, the prosecution presented their witnesses and the respondent Judge decided granting
the accused of their right to bail despite the formers objection that it still had material witnesses
to present.
ISSUE: Does the prosecution have the right to present further evidence in regarding a motion
for bail in the course of a regular trial?
HELD: Whether the motion for bail is heard in the form of a summary proceeding or in the
course of a regular trial, the prosecution has an equal right to be given an opportunity to present
its evidence. The court's discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must be exercised in the light
of a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution; otherwise, it would be uncontrolled
and might be capricious or whimsical. The decision must contain a summary of the evidence
presented.

A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387

September 10, 1997
FLAVIANO B. CORTES, vs. JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch
7, Aparri, Cagayan
ROMERO, J.: A complaint was filed with respondent Judge charging him guilty of Gross
Ignorance of the Law for a reason, among others when he decided several cases, of
erroneously granting bail to the accused in a murder case entitled People vs. Ahmed Duerme.
The respondent Judge alleged that he acted with the recommendation of the provincial
prosecutor regarding the amount of the bailbond and granted the petition because the
prosecution did not proved that the evidence of guilt is strong as there were no witnesses
present that could testify to it. Nonetheless, the records show no conduct of a hearing for the
petition for bail; there was no summary of evidence present; and in fact, the accused was not
even presented because he was at large and yet to be arrested.
ISSUE: W/N the grant of bail was valid even though the accused was not yet arrested.
HELD: The right to bail can only be availed by a person who is in custody of the law or
otherwise deprived of his liberty. In this case, the judgment had a procedural lapse because of
the fixation of the amount of bail when the accused was yet to be arrested. It would be
premature to file a petition for bail when the freedom of the accused has yet to be curtailed.

G.R. No. L-278

July 18, 1946
HAYDEE HERRAS TEEHANKEE, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, and LEOPOLDO
ROVIRA, POMPEYO DIAZ, ANTONIO QUIRINO and JOSE P. VELUZ, Judges of People's
Court
HILADO, J.: Petitioner was detained for having been allegedly collaborating with the enemy
forces during the Japanese occupation. However, no information was filed against her so she
sought to be temporarily released under a verbal petition for bail. The Special Prosecutors
recommended that the bail should be at Php 50, 000 but one of the respondent-Judge denied
the bail for the reason that the recommended bailbond is not at par with the gravity of the
offense. Petitioner sought to set aside the decision which was granted by the SC. The SC
ordered the Peoples Court to decide on the application. At the hearing, the second respondentJudge asked the prosecution with questions allegedly tending to compel disclosure of evidence.
The petitioners counsel objected for the reason that the courts duty is only to grant the verbal
petition for bail; however, the Judge reserved its decision. It was again elevated to the SC and
the same scenario happened but this time, the special prosecutor was held in contempt for nondisclosure of evidence. The application for bail was left undecided.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner should be granted bail even if no information was filed against her.
HELD: It is not necessary for a detained person to wait for a formal complaint or information to
be filed against him before he can claim his right for bail. From the moment he is placed under
arrest, detained or restraint, he can claim the guarantee of the Bill of Rights. There is no legal or
just basis to deny such benefit to one against whom the proper authorities may yet to conclude
that there exists no sufficient evidence of guilt. The constitutional provision includes persons
merely arrested with still no information against them as persons before conviction one who
has not been convicted.

G.R. No. 148571

September 24, 2002
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Represented by the Philippine
Department of Justice, vs. HON. GUILLERMO PURGANAN, Presiding Judge Regional
Trial Court of Manila and MARC JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARCIO BATACAN CRESPO
PANGANIBAN, J.: When the temporary restraining order against the extradition for Mark
Jimenez was lifted, the US Govt., represented by the Philippine DOJ filed for the extradition of
the former because of, among other information, his alleged membership in a conspiracy to
defraud the USA. Jimenez sought to be tried in the Philippine courts and prayed to be allowed
to post bail in the amount of Php 100, 000 in case a warrant of arrest shall be issued against
him. The trial court through the respondent-Judge directed that a warrant of arrest be issued
and the bail be fixed at Php 1mil in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the
required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty.
ISSUE: W/N an accused in a pending extradition proceeding can be entitled the right to bail?
HELD: Persons in a pending extradition proceeding cannot be entitled the right to bail because
of the following reasons: 1) Extradition is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime by
facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer of a fugitive from one state to the other. It is the
only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court
competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law; 2) The Requesting
State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused as an extradition treaty presupposes that both
parties thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each others legal system and
judicial process. Hence, there will be no violation of Due Process; 3) Extradition Proceedings
Are Sui Generis which does not primarily consider the constitutional rights of the accused unlike
criminal proceedings. The process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt
or innocence of an accused and does not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Presumption of innocence is not an issue in this kinds of cases. His guilt or innocence will be
adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional
rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be
invoked by an extradite; 4) Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith as the Extradition Treaty carries
the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest under the principle of
pacta sunt servanda; and lastly, 5) There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight presumed against an
extraditee. Furthermore, bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases, however, he may apply
for bail and can be granted an exception only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that,
once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2)
that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a matter of
reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional
liberty in extradition cases therein. The applicant then bears the burden of proving the above
two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and emphatic forcefulness. Being an elective
position does not result in a substantial distinction against ordinary persons; contentions of
delay due to lengthy proceedings of extradition cases are merely anticipatory and academic at
this point; and lastly, mere claims of non-flight after having knowledge of an extradition request
does not precisely justify that an extraditee is not a flight-risk.