BAIL

Recidivist - (meaning)
Q: If he is a recidivist and you were the judge, how would you rule on the
application?
A: NO, because when presence of any of the circumstances is present and
proven, then the accused shall be denied bail.
Q: What is the effect of probation?
Q: Will probation wipes out the criminal liability of the accused?
A: NO. Probation only suspends the implementation of .... that's why it is subject
to...
Once the accused violates any of the conditions imposed by this court,
then the probation will be removed.
Probation is an act of grace actually because the purpose of probation is
rehabilitation because time and time again it was proven that a continued
confinement ... in order that the human resource can still be utilized.
Q: Supposed the accused was convicted in the RTC, and MTC imposed a penalty
of six (6) years only. Is bail a matter of right or a matter of discretion or bail is not
allowed?
A: BAIL IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION because there is already second
conviction. One by the MTC, and then subsequently by the RTC.
Q:When can you say that it is still a matter of right even if the case is appealed to
the RTC? Is there an instance wherein even if the case is appealed to the RTC,
Bail is still a matter of right?
A: YES before conviction by the RTC, bail is still a matter of right. It presupposes
that the case is still new in the RTC. WHY? Because if the accused was already
convicted by the RTC even exercising its appellate jurisdiction, it is no longer a
matter of right, but it is already a matter of discretion.
Sec. 5 (3)
Q: Is hearing necessary at all times to determine the whether the guilt is strong?
Q: Supposed at the time of the commission of an offense it is considered a
capital offense, but at the time for the application of bail it is no longer
considered capital offense (death was already wipe out/obliterated because of the
subsequent law). Does the accused has the right to bail?
A: Procedural laws are curative in nature, past commission or act should be
given retroactive effect. The accused can apply for bail

Sec. 26 - This section is curative in nature because even with bail, even when
yu applied for bail, even with the grant of bail, the accused is not bar from
questioning the legality of his arrest or the lack of absence of justification
provided that he will raised it before he is arraigned.
Q: Can this be given retroactive effect? What happen to the accused, to those
cases committed prior to this?
A: This will still apply to those cases pending cases because this is curative in
nature (statute).
Q: What is recognizance?
A: A specific form of gain. In what matter?
Q: Why recognizance is allowed?
A: It is an obligation of a court entered into guaranteeing to avail the accused that
whenever the court requires the presence of the accused, I will surrender him.
For the meantime, no cash or property bond is involve.
Q: Can the judge dispense with the hearing when it comes to bail application?
Can the judge grant bail without determining whether the evidence of guilt is
strong?
Can the judge just approved the bail without any hearing from the matter?
A:
It depends. Because it is purely discretionary when the accused is charged for
a capital offense or an offense where penalty is RP, or life imprisonment and
the evidence of guilt is strong, lower than that the judge can no longer
render...
But if the accused is charged with an offense where penalty is RP or life
imprisonment then it is mandatory on the part of the judge to conduct
hearing to determine the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. That is the only way or
purpose whether the guilt is strong or not.
Because even if he is charged with capital offense or an offense punishable by
RP or life impisonment and the evidence of guilt is not strong after the
summary hearing, then bail becomes a matter of right.
DACUDAO V. CA
- In this case, the accused was charged with MURDER for killing someone.
- The judge did not conduct a hearing and approved the bail application. He
was administratively disciplined by the Supreme Court. WHY? Because of the
ignorance of the law. It is very clear that the accused is charged for capital
offense or an offense punishable by RP, or life imprisonment, the hearing is
mandatory.
Q: Duties of the judge once an application for bail is filed with the court?

If the evidence of guilt is strong - deny bail

If the evidence of guilt is not strong - allow the accused to post bail
ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
- Why controversial?
- Because nowhere you can find a reason which is HUMANITARIAN REASON that
is included as one of the grounds for granting bail.
- In this case, they granted bail even if he was charged with plunder (punishable
RP, LI), but despite the fact, he was set free for HUMANITARIAN REASON.
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE (PVD)
- The police officer is justifying in the search and in the confiscation and in the
utilization of the evidence which is the instrument of the crime.
Q: What makes Plain View Doctrine justifiable?
A:
The search and seizure clause is a guarantee against arbitrary intrusions
because the presumption is that the search is unreasonable unless it is
accompanied by a search warrant or unless it falls under the exception.
There is no presumption of regularity because we are dealing here with the
right of privacy - we have the right to be let alone.
SO IN ORDER FOR THE POLICE OFFICER THAT THE INTRUSION IS
JUSTIFIABLE:
1. THERE MUST BE A PRIOR VALID INTRUSION.
- The intrusion must be valid because once the police officer gets in and
then it was already an illegal intrusion (bisan pa nagkatag pa na diha ang shabu)
that will never ever justify PVD because in the first place, the intrusion was
already invalid.
2. THE EVIDENCE WAS INADVERTENTLY DISCOVERED BY THE POLICE
OFFICER WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BE WHERE HE IS
- In other words, Iyang na-diScover/nakit-an kay tungod at that time, naa
siyay giaadto didto, dili kay iyang iyang gituyo pag-adto didto because if you
have this situation, you must equate it with search warrant because the operative
word here is inadvertently discovered.
3. THAT THE EVIDENCE MUST IMMEDIATELY APPARENT.
EX: May nag-away then giadto sa Police Officer coz he suspects something about
the person. He told the him to accompanied him to his house. The PO suspected
that this person is dili maayo. . . After iyang gipang-abli ang cabinet, then the PO
saw marijuana.

Q: WAS HE SEARCH CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE?

A: NO. Because he has no right o be where he is at that precise moment.
4. WITHOUT FURTHER SEARCH.
- This is the evidence, this is the one to be confiscated - this one alone
should be taken by the Police Officer and utilized it as evidence against the
accused without further search.
If the PO will further search, that is already considered as an illegal search
beacause it violates the protection afforded by the search and seizure clause of
the Constitution.
PEOPLE V. DURIA? (1999)
PRINCIPLE: The Plain View Doctrine is applied only where the police officer is not
searching for evidence... because if you are the PO, the regular way to do it is to
ask for a search warrant before you search because of the fundamental
protection afforded by search and seizure clause of the Constitution.
He was not there in order to search for evidence, but inadvertently
chance upon something which is illegal in nature that will justify PVD.
PEOPLE V. ____? (2001)
- There is a search warrant. The POs found the shabu first and then in the
process (chance upon an item that was wrapped in a newspaper), they saw
marijuana and confiscated it. They prosecute the accused not only fo shabu and
drug paraphernalia, but also for the marijuana.
Q: Was the utilization of the marijuana admissible in evidence?
A: NO, you cannot utilized marijuana to prosecute the accused. Once the valid
portion of the search warrant has already been effected or accomplished, any
subsequent search under the guise of plain view doctrine is no longer justifiable.
(can no longer provide a basis for admitting subsequently the other items that
were found in the course)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
A: Plain View Doctrine will no longer apply but instead search incidental to lawful
arrest provided that the arrest was lawful; otherwise if the arrest is not lawful, any
subsequent search is invalid because of the DOCTRINE OF POISONOUS TREE.