Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Sec 16 Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance

No bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so provide.

When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the
possible maximum imprisonment prescribe for the offense charged, he
shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the
trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty
(30) days of preventive imprisonment.

A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the
principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without application
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall
be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the
discretion of the court. (16a)

General rule: Bail is not required when the law or the Rules of court so provide.

Instances wherein the accused can be released without putting bail:


When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the
possible maximum imprisonment prescribe for the offense charged, he shall
be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or
the proceedings on appeal.
Offense charged is violation of an ordinance, light felony, or a criminal
offense the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 months of imprisonment
and/or fine of 2,000 under RA 6036
Exceptions:
(a) Caught committing the offense in flagrante
(b) When accused confesses to the commission of the offense unless he later
repudiates the same in a sworn statement or in open court as having
been extracted through force or intimidation
(c) Found to have previously escaped legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
jumped bail
(d) Found to have violated Sec. 2 of RA 6036 which provides that the
violation of the accused of the sworn statement (required instead of bail)
shall justify the court to order his immediate arrest, if the accused failure
to report is not justified
(e) Accused is a recidivist or habitual delinquent or has been previously
convicted for an offense to which the law/ordinance attaches an
equal/greater penalty or for two/more offenses to which it attaches a
lighter penalty
(f) Accused committed the offense while on parole or under conditional
pardon
(g) Accused has previously been pardoned for violation of municipal/city
ordinance for at least two times [Riano, citing Sec. 1, RA 6036]

Where the accused applied for probation and before the same has been
resolved but no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, in
which case he may be released on his own recognizance.
In case of youthful offender held for physical or mental examination, trial, or
appeal, if unable to furnish bail and under circumstances provided by P.D.
603.
A person accused of an offense with a maximum penalty of destierro shall be
released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment.
In cases filed with the MTC/MCTC for an offense punishable by an
imprisonment of less than 4 yrs, 2mos. and 1 day, and the judge is satisfied
that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody. [Riano,
citing Sec. 8, Rule 112]

On reduced bail or on his own recognizance:


A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the
principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall be
released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of
the court.

Sec. 17 Bail, where filed


a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is
pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any
regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or
municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. If the
accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where
the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any regional trial court of
said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial
judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein.

(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused


seeks to be released on recognizance, the application may only be filed in
the court where the case is pending, whether on preliminary
investigation, trial, or on appeal.

(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for
bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held.
(17a)

General rule : The application for bail may be filed with the court where the case is
pending.

Exceptions:
(a) If the judge of the court where the case is pending is absent or unavailable, the
application may be filed with any RTC/MTC/MeTC/MCTC judge in the province, city or
municipality.

(b) Where the accused is arrested in a province, city/municipality other than where
the case is pending, the application may be filed with any RTC of the said place. If
no judge is available, then with any MeTC/MTC/MCTC judge in the said place. Judge
who accepted the application shall forward it, together with the order of release and
other supporting papers where the case is pending
(c) When a person is in custody but not yet charged, he may apply with any court in
the province or city/municipality where he is held.

(d) If the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of
the offense, from non-bailable to bailable, the application of bail can only be filed
with and resolved by the appelate court.

Note:
Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be
released on recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court where the
case is pending, on trial, or appeal.

A judge presiding in one branch has no power to grant bail to an accused who is
being tried in another branch presided by another judge, who is not absent or
unavailable, and his act of releasing him on bail constitutes ignorance of law which
subjects him to disciplinary sanctions.

Jurisprudence
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1588
JUDGE DIVINA LUZ P. AQUINO-SIMBULAN, Complainant,

- versus -

PRESIDING JUDGE NICASIO BARTOLOME (retired), ACTING CLERK OF COURT


ROMANA C. PASCUAL, CLERK OF COURT MILAGROS P. LEREY (retired), and DOCKET
CLERK AMOR DELA CRUZ, all of the Municipal Trial Court, Sta. Maria, Bulacan,
Respondents.

Facts:
Criminal Case No. 13360 was originally raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, San
Fernando, Pampanga, where complainant Judge presides. On September 18, 2003, said branch of the
RTC received an Indorsement from Warrant/Subpoena Officer PO3 Edwin Villacentino of the Sasmuan
Municipal Police Station stating that the accused Mercado voluntarily surrendered before the MTC of
Sta. Maria, Bulacan and posted her bail bond through Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc., which
was duly approved by respondent Judge Bartolome on August 21, 2003. This prompted complainant to
issue an Order[2] dated October 29, 2003, directing respondent Lerey, then Clerk of Court of the MTC,
to transmit to the RTC within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of said Order, the bond which the
former court approved.

When the Clerk of Court failed to comply, complainant Judge issued an Order directing the former to
explain in writing why she should not be cited in contempt for delaying the administration of justice.
On January 29, 2004, the RTC received a letter[4] from respondent Romana Pascual, then Acting Clerk
of Court of the MTC, explaining that the bail bond in Criminal Case No. 13360 was approved by
respondent Judge during the tenure of Lerey, and that the latter had retired on August 26, 2003.
On February 12, 2004, the RTC received a written explanation[5] from Lerey stating that she had
misplaced and overlooked the subject surety bond, which resulted in the delay of its transmission to
the RTC. Attached to Lereys letter were the following documents: (1) the Court Order dated August 21,
2003 signed by respondent Judge; (2) Bond No. 46485 dated August 21, 2003 with attachments; (3)
Undertaking dated November 22, 2003; (4) Certification from the Office of the Court Administrator,
dated October 29, 2003; and (5) Certification from Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc.,
dated November 22, 2003.

Upon perusal of the documents, complainant Judge discovered that the subject surety bond bore some
erasures, and its attachments were highly anomalous. In view of these findings, the RTC issued a
subpoena to respondents Pascual and Lerey directing them to appear before it to explain the
aforementioned errors. After the hearing, Public Prosecutor Otto Macabulos stated that he found the
explanation too shallow and self-serving, and that he would file an indirect contempt case under Rule
71, Section 3 (d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against Lerey and Dela Cruz. He filed said
complaint[7] on June 21, 2004. The RTC, Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga then directed Lerey and
Dela Cruz to explain in writing within fifteen (15) days why they should not be cited in indirect
contempt of court or improper conduct in the processing of the bail bond of accused Mercado. In an
Order[11] dated December 14, 2004, the RTC found Lerey guilty of indirect contempt and sentenced
her to pay a fine of P10,000.00, which she duly paid. However, it absolved Dela Cruz from any liability
as it found her explanation meritorious.

Issue:
Whether or not the bail should be filed in RTC Bulacan

Held:
No. the Court holds that there were indeed grave errors and discrepancies committed by respondents
Judge Bartolome and Lerey in processing the surety bond for the accused in Criminal Case No. 13360.

The following provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure apply before an accused can be
released on bail:

Sec. 14( Now sec 17). Bail, where filed. (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where
the case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of
the same court within the province or city. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality
other than where the case is pending, bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of said place,
or, if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal
circuit trial judge therein. x x x

Sec. 16. ( now sec 19) Release on bail. The accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by
the judge with whom it was filed in accordance with Section 14 hereof.
Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge accepting the bail
shall forward the bail, the order of release and other supporting papers to the court where the case is
pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed.

The OCAs Report revealed that the accused Rosalina Mercado was not arrested. The proper procedure,
according to the above-cited rules, would have been to file her bail bond with the RTC Branch 41, San
Fernando, Pampanga where her case was pending. Had complainant Judge been absent or was
unavailable at that time, the accused could file for bail with another branch of the RTC in Pampanga or
in San Fernando City. However, the accused filed her surety bond with the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan,
where it was approved by respondent Judge.

Not only did respondent Judge erroneously order the release of the accused, but he also failed to
require submission of the supporting documents needed in the application for a bond. There was no
Certificate of Detention or Warrant of Arrest attached to the bond transmitted by the MTC to the
complainant Judge. Moreover, the other supporting documents were belatedly filed. Records show that
respondent Judge approved the bail bond on August 21, 2003, but the Undertaking was dated
November 22, 2003, the Certification from the OCA was dated October 29, 2003, and the Certification
from Summit Guaranty and Insurance Co., Inc. was dated November 22, 2003.

Sec 18 Notice of application to the prosecutor


In the application for bail under section 8 of this Rule, the court must give
reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to
submit his recommendation

Such notice is necessary because the burden of proving that the evidence of guilt is
strong is on the prosecution and that the discretion of the court in admitting the
accused to bail can only be exercised after the fiscal has been heard regarding the
nature of the evidence in his possession. (People vs Raba G.R. N. L- 10724)

Jurisprudence
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR MANUEL F. TORREVILLAS v.
JUDGE ROBERTO A. NAVIDAD

587 SCRA 39 (2009)

Judges cannot take refuge in the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court


personnel since proper and efficient court management is their
responsibility.

On July 16, 2003, Provincial Prosecutor Manuel Torrevillas, Jr. brought to the
attention of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. the inapropriate
actuation of Judge Roberto A. Navidad of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Calabayog City in the handling of cases before his sala. The Chief Justice thus
instructed the Provincial Prosecutor to submit a written report thereon to
which he complied by letter-complaint.

By 1st Indorsement, the letter-complaint was referred by the Chief Justice to


then Court Administrator and now a member of this Court, Presbitero J.
Velasco, Jr., for comment and recommendation. By Resolution, the Court
acting on the recommendations of Justice Velasco in his Memorandum to the
Chief Justice, required Judge Navidad to comment on the complaint and
directed the Court Management Office of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) to: (1) conduct a judicial audit on all undecided criminal
cases, which include cases that are pending, submitted for
decision, archived, etc. for the purpose of determining any inappropriate
actuation with respect to the issuance of court orders especially on matters
pertaining to the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses; and (2) coordinate
with Trial Prosecutor Cicero T. Lampasa as regards the other cases that
needed to be investigated.
By Resolution, the Court referred the complaint to Justice Isaias P. Dicdican of
the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Navidad should be held administratively liable for gross
inefficiency?

Held:

Yes. The Court finds the respective recommendations of the Investigating Justice
and the OCA well-taken.

Rule 114, on bail, of the Rules of Court reads

Sec. 8. Burdern of proof in bail application. At the hearing of an application for bail
filed by a person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burdern of
showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail
hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion
of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless
the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.

xxxx

Sec. 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. In the application for bail under section
8 of this Rule, the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the
prosecutor or require him to submit his recommendation.

While it is well-settled that the courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the
public prosecutor to determine the specificity and adequacy of the offense charged,
the judge may dismiss a complaint if he finds it to be insufficient in form or
substance or without any ground; otherwise, he may proceed with the case if in his
view it is sufficient and proper in form.

In the discharge of a judges duties, however, when the inefficiency springs from a
failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle, the judge is
either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds, or is too
vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in
grave abuse of judicial authority. If the rule or law is so elementary, as the above-
quoted sections of Rule 114 are, not to know it or to act as if he does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law, without even the complainant having to
prove malice or bad faith on the part of the judge, as it can be clearly inferred from
the error committed. On this score, as reflected in the Investigating Justices and the
OCAs separate reports, the Court finds respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the
law.

Respondent also committed undue delay in disposing of the cases assigned to him.
Judges have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. A judge who
fails to do so has to suffer the consequences of his omission, as any delay in the
disposition of cases undermines the peoples faith in the Judiciary.

Sec 19 - Release on bail


The accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by the judge
with whom it was filed in accordance with section 17 of this Rule.

Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending,
the judge who accepted the bail shall forward it, together with the order
of release and other supporting papers, to the court where the case is
pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed.
(19a)

Once the accused has been admitted to bail, he is entitled to immediate release
from custody. An officer, who fails or refused to release him from detention
notwithstanding the approval by the proper court of his bailbond, may be held liable
under Art. 126 of the Revised Penal Code for delaying release.

Jurisprudence
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1673

VIRGINIA B. SAVELLA, Complainant

vs

JUDGE ILUMINADA M. INES, MTC-Sinait, Ilocos Sur,Respondent.

Facts:

The Letter-Complaint stemmed from a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public


Document filed by complainant against Isabel Ibaez (accused), before the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities of Vigan, Ilocos Sur (MTCC-Vigan). A warrant of arrest was not
immediately served on the accused because she was residing in the United States
of America at that time. On 18 April 2006, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
operatives tried to serve an alias warrant of arrest on the accused, who reportedly
returned to the Philippines to visit her hometown in Sinait, Ilocos Sur. The accused,
however, was not found at her residence. Instead, her daughter produced a copy of
the Order[2] dated 13 April 2006 issued by respondent judge directing the
provisional release of the accused upon posting of a P12,000.00 bail bond.
Complainant claims that the Clerk of Court of MTC-Sinait did not forward the bail
bond papers to the court where the case was pending. This failure, according to
complainant, is tantamount to serious misconduct. He further alleges that the order
of respondent judge was highly irregular for it gave undue favor and illegal
accommodation to the accused who is known to be a close friend of respondent
judge.

In her Comment, respondent judge narrates that on Holy Tuesday, 13 April 2006,
the accused, together with her daughters, dropped by her house, voluntarily
surrendered to her, and posted bail. Respondent called her clerk to prepare the
corresponding receipt for the cash bond. However, on account of the Holy Week
celebration and the heavy workload in her court, so respondent judge claims, she
forgot to transmit the bail bond papers to MTCC-Vigan until she was reminded by
her Clerk of Court on 20 April 2006 when the latter was ordered [ by Judge Francisco
Ante, Jr. (Judge Ante) of MTCC-Vigan to immediately forward the bail bond papers of
the accused. In its Report dated 17 October 2006, the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law
and recommended a fine of P5,000.00 with warning that a repetition of a similar
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely. [6]

In a Resolution[7] dated 15 January 2007, the Court required the parties to manifest
whether or not they are willing to submit the matter for resolution on the basis of
the pleadings filed. Complainant, in her manifestation, responded in the affirmative.
[8]
Respondent, however, did not submit any manifestation despite receipt of a copy
of the Resolution[9] on 16 February 2007. Therefore, she is deemed to have
submitted the case for resolution.

Issue:

Whether or not the Judge violated sec 19 of Rule 114

Held:

Yes. The SC stated in its decision that the even if the respondent judge rightfully
granted bail to accused, her failure to transmit the order of release and other
supporting papers to the court where the case is pending constitutes another
violation of the rules, particularly Section 19 of Rule 114.[10] Respondent judge
should have forwarded the records pertaining to the bail bond immediately after she
received the same.

Judges are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural rules. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic
legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. They should
strive for excellence exceeded only by their passion for truth, to the end that they
be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law. When the law is sufficiently
basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply it; anything less than that would
be gross ignorance of the law.

This blatant violation of the rules exhibited by respondent judge is tantamount to


gross ignorance of law or procedure classified as a serious charge under Section 8
of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC

Sec 20 Increase or reduction of bail


After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good cause,
either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be
committed to custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount
within a reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge,
who is released without bail upon filing of the complaint or information,
may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a strong
showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in the
amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody. (20a)

The Court may, upon good cause, either increase or reduce the amount of the bail.

The guidelines provided for in Sec. 9, Rule 114, in fixing the amount of bail are also
applicable in reducing or increasing the bail previously fixed.

When the amount of bail is increased, the accused may be committed to custody if
he does not give the increased amount within the reasonable period.

Where the offense is bailable as a matter of right, the mere probability that the
accused will escaped, or even if he had previously escaped under detention, does
not deprive him of his right to bail. The remedy is to increase the amount of the bail,
provided such amount would not be excessive. (Sy Guan vs Amparo,79 Phil. 670)

S-ar putea să vă placă și