Constitutional Law: Article III, Section 13 Summary (De Leon)
Section 13. 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, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required
Meaning of bail.
Bail is the security required by a court and given for the provisional or temporary release of a person who is in the custody of the law, for the commission of an offense, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions specified. (see Rules of Court, Rule 114, Sec. 1.)
It is a mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty, insure the attendance of the accused for the subsequent trial.
When is a person considered to be in the custody of the law.
(a) when he is arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued pursuant to Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, or even without a warrant under Section 5, Rule 113 in relation to Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, or
(b) when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
Purpose/rationale of bail. (RPRP)
(1) To relieve an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet assure appearance at the trial, and at the same time enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to conviction;
(2) To prevent the release of the accused who might otherwise be dangerous to society or whom judges might not want to release;
(3) Acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused interest in liberty before trial and the society's interest in assuring accused's presence at the trial;
(4) In all criminal prosecution, the accused is presumed innocent.
Form of bail. (CPCR)
Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. The form of the bond is left to the discretion of the court.
(1) After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good cause, either increase or reduce its amount.
(2) The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector or internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case.
Recognizance.
A recognizance is a simple personal obligation or undertaking entered into before a court having no money penalty attached. The accused may be temporarily released on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person.
Effect of bail. (TPLS)
(1) To transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection. Such custody has been regarded merely as continuation of the original imprisonment.
(2) 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. Upon assumption of the obligation of bail, the sureties become in law the jailers of their principal.
(3) When a cash bail is allowed, the two parties to the transaction are the State and the accused. Unlike other bail bonds, the money may then be used in the payment of that in which the State is concerned - the fine and costs. The right of the government is in the nature of a lien on the money deposited.
(4) The giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
Who may invoke the right to bail. (ADDV)
Where bail is a matter of right, the prosecution does not have the right to present evidence for the denial of bail or to oppose the grant of bail. But it must be given notice of the hearing or at least asked for its recommendation as to the amount of bail.
The right to bail is available to any person arrested, detained, or otherwise, deprived of his liberty, whether or not an information (criminal complaint) has been filed against him.'
A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender.
The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on a petition for bail.
Note that the Constitution explicitly grants the right to bail to "all persons," not merely to "all civilians."
The right to bail as guaranteed by the Constitution may not be denied even where the accused has previously escaped his detention, or by reason of his prior absconding.
Bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a dear and convincing showing (a) that he will not be a flight risk as a danger to the community; and (b) that there exists special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.
When the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
When the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the right to bail, even for the commission of national security crimes (see Sec. 15.), is still available to the person detained except as provided in Section 13.
A petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial.
When bail is a matter of right.
Bail is a matter of right to an accused where the offense charged is not punishable by death, or reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment even if the evidence of guilt is strong, or where the offense charged is so punishable but the evidence of guilt is not strong.
Note that the crime involved must be punishable by death, during two points of time: the time of its commission and the time of the application for bail.
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
When right not available. (CPJ-AWM)
(1) The right cannot be invoked where the applicant is not in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty (arrested or detained) because he went into hiding and is at large, and hence, a free man even when he has already been criminally charged m court.
The purpose of bail is to secure one's release and it would be incongruous or premature to grant bail to one who is free or whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
(2) It is also not available to one charged with an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua, when evidence of his guilt is strong regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. Under the Rules of Court, the same rule applies where the offense charged is life imprisonment which, for purposes of Section is considered of the same category as reclusion perpetua.
The obvious reason for the non-availability of the right is that the accused has a particularly strong temptation to flee if he has the opportunity rather than face the verdict of the court.
Note that a person charged with a capital offense is not absolutely denied the opportunity to obtain provisional liberty on bail pending the judgment of his case. However, as to such person bail is not a matter of right but is discretionary upon the court.
(3) Under the Rules of Court, "no bail shall be allowed after the judgment of conviction has become final, or after the accused has commenced to serve sentence."
(4) It is available only in criminal proceedings; hence aliens in deportation proceedings, which are administrative in nature, do not enjoy the right.
The granting of bail is discretionary with the Commissioner Immigration. Of course, an alien suspected of or charged with having committed a bailable offense is entitled to bail as any one.
(5) The right to bail cannot be invoked where there is waiver.
It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be "contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or goods customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law."
It is competent for a person to waive expressly or impliedly a personal right guaranteed by the Constitution and to consent to action which would be invalid if taken against his will.
(6) The right to bail has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military, -as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights.
The release from confinement of a person subject to military law facing charges before a general court-martial is a matter that lies largely in the discretion of the military authorities who are in a better position to appreciate the gravity of said charges and the advisability of releasing him pending trial and disposition of the case filed against him.
Test to determine the penalty.
The test to determine the penalty affixed to the offense charged is not the penalty to be actually imposed on the accused in view of attendant circumstances, but the penalty described by law for the offense charged as described in the recitals of the information, in relation to the penal provision supposedly violated . The designation of the offense is not binding upon the court.
Right to bail of potential extraditee.
An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The extradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the extradition treaty and whether the person sought is extraditable.
Case: USA vs. Purganan
The United States Government requested the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez from the Philippine Government.
Jimenez obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent his extradition, but the Supreme Court later reversed its decision.
The Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ) then filed a Petition for Extradition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jimenez requested a hearing for the application of an arrest warrant, which was granted by the RTC.
The court issued an order for Jimenez's arrest and set bail at one million pesos in cash. Jimenez surrendered his passport and posted bail, leading to his provisional release.
Issue: WoN in extradition proceedings, prospective extraditees entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. NO.
As suggested by the use of the word “conviction” in Art. III, Section 13 of the Constitution, the constitutional provision on bail, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws—it does not apply to extradition proceedings where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.
The provision in the Constitution stating that the “right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended” does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings.
To best serve the ends of justice, the Court holds that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as 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.
Case: Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
This Petition for Certiorari aims to invalidate two orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila. The first order granted bail to Juan Antonio Muñoz, the private respondent, while the second order denied the motion to revoke the bail.
The petitioner, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region represented by the Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ), asserts that both orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion since there is no constitutional provision permitting bail for potential extraditees.
Muñoz faced charges in Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong Department of Justice requested his provisional arrest from the Philippine DOJ. The RTC initially issued an order of arrest, which was declared void by the Court of Appeals but later upheld by the Supreme Court. The extradition petition filed by Hong Kong was transferred across different branches of the RTC, and the respondent judge in Branch 8 granted Muñoz's motion for reconsideration, allowing him to post bail. The petitioner argues that the respondent judge exceeded his authority by granting bail since there is no constitutional provision permitting it for potential extraditees.
Issue: WoN the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail. NO.
The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. In light of the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order.
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, the Court sees no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases—clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights.
After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.. Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal, an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may follow extradition. Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. “Temporary detention” may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable.
Duties of a judge in a petition for bail in a capital offense. (NCDD)
(1) In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation
(2) Where bail is a matter of discretion conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is stong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion;
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; and
(4) If the evidence of guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond, otherwise, the petition should be denied;
Mere affidavits of the accused and/ or his witness or witnesses or recitals of other contents are not sufficient voice. They are mere hearsay evidence; hence, they cannot legally form the basis of an order granting bail. The prosecution must be given an opportunity to cross-examine them.
A judge should not grant bail based simply on the failure of the prosecution to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong; he should endeavor to determine the existence of such evidence.
An accused charged with a capital offense is still entitled to bail but no longer "as a matter of right." Instead it is discretionary on the part of the trial court and calls for a judicial determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong in order to grant bail.
It is incumbent on the accused as to whom no bail has been recommended or fixed, to claim the right to a bail hearing and thereby put to proof the strength or weakness of the evidence against him.
Summary hearing.
A brief and speedy method of receiving evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing, which is to determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail.
In such a hearing, the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against the accused, nor is it called to speculate on the outcome of the trial.
The court may confine itself to substantial matters avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The evidence for purposes of granting bail is merely preliminary and is not conclusive.
The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial.
Balancing of rights.
A bail application does not only involve the right of the accuse to temporary liberty corollary to presumption of innocence but likewise the right of the State to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements. These two rights must be balanced by the judge in the scale of justice; hence, the necessity of a hearing to guide his exercise of discretion.
Prohibition against excessive bail.
(1) A restriction on both courts and congress. -
The Constitution ordains that excessive bail shall not be required. This is a restriction on both courts and Congress. Without the explicit injunction, the right to bail would be rendered nugatory or a meaningless farce by requiring a sum that is excessive.
(2) Discretion of judge to fix reasonable amount of bail. -
What amount is a reasonable bail rests mainly upon the discretion of the judge.
(a) He has to take into account in deciding the matter, among others, the nature of the offense, the penalty which the law attaches to it, the probability of guilt, and the financial condition of the accused.
That which is reasonable bail to a man of wealth is equivalent to a denial of right if exacted of a poor man charged with a like offense.
The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required, but it should not be so higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused's interest in his provisional liability before or during the trial, and the society's interest in assuring the accused's presence. As a general principle, a bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is excessive.
(b) Also, the amount of bail may be reasonable if considered in terms of surety or property bond, but excessive if required in the form of cash. A security or property bond does not require an actual financial outlay and in the case of the bondsman, the bond may be obtained by the accused upon the payment of a relatively small premium. Upon the other hand, the posting of cash bond would entail a transfer of assets into the possession of the court, and its procurement could work untold hardship on the part of the accused as to have the effect of altogether denying him the constitutional right to bail. The option to post a cash bond primarily belongs to the accused.
(3) Guidelines in fixing the amount of bail. -
The guidelines for the fixing of the amount of bail are not matters left entirely to the discretion of the court. They call for the presentation of evidence and reasonable opportunity for the prosecution of refute.