Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FACTS
Yap sought the reduction of the bail but was denied. Hence, he appealed to the
SC, he contended that the CA, by setting bail at a prohibitory amount, effectively
denied him his right to bail. He also contested the condition imposed by the CA that
he secures a certificate or guaranty, claiming that the same violates his liberty of
abode and travel.
ISSUE
Whether or not the proposed bail was violative of petitioner’s right against
excessive bail
RULING
Yes. The SC said that the bail amounting to PHP 5.5 million is unreasonable,
excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioner’s right to bail. The purpose
of the bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so
required by the court. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of
the accused but not higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill the purpose. To fix
bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of which petitioner is charged is to
permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability
that accused is charged of. The SC further said that this cannot be allowed because
bail is not intended as punishment nor a satisfaction of civil liability which should
necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court. Also, Section 9, Rule 114 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures advises courts to consider the following factors
in setting the amount of bail: