UPDATES IN BAIL

MARLO CAMPANILLA·MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2019·4 MINUTES

Under Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, 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. However, there are crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua, and yet,
they are bailable.

1. Crimes punishable by a penalty, of which reclusion perpetua is just a component, are

bailable. For example, the penalty prescribed for mutilation is reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua. Reclusion perpetua will be imposable only in cases where evidence
establishes after trial the presence of aggravating circumstance contemplated in Article
63 of the Revised Penal Code, or the complex character thereof in accordance with
Article 48. In determining the bailability of a crime, the court shall consider not the
imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua but the penalty prescribed by law. Since the
penalty prescribed by law is “reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua,” the crime is
bailable (People vs. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 8, 2015; Salcedo vs. Hon.
Third Division of the Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 223869-960, February 13, 2019). In
sum, to consider the crime as non-bailable, the prescribed penalty must be purely
reclusion perpetua. With the Valdez principle, sexual abuse punishable by reclusion
temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua under Section 5 of RA No. 7610,
illegal possession of dangerous drugs punishable by imprisonment of 20 years and 1 day
to life imprisonment under Section 11 (b) of RA No. 9165, and treason committed by a
resident alien punishable by reclusion temporal to death under Article 114 of the Revised
Penal Code are now bailable.

2. Crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua committed by minor are bailable. In

determining the bailability of a crime, the court shall not consider the penalty to be
actually imposed because the same would require a consideration not only of the
evidence of the commission of the crime but also evidence of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Hence, circumstance (e.g. special mitigating circumstances)
that requires the reduction of penalty from reclusion perpetua to a bailable level shall be
disregarded in assessing whether bail is a matter of right unless such circumstance is
established without objection (Bravo vs. Borja, G.R. No. L-65228 February 18, 1985), or
is alleged in the information (e.g. frustrated murder alleged in the information is
bailable). However, Section 34 of RA No. 9344 provides that for purposes of
recommending the amount of bail, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
shall be considered. For example, if a child in conflict with the law is charged with
murder, the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua to death while the penalty to be
actually imposed is reclusion temporal because of the privilege mitigating circumstance
of minority. A child in conflict with the law, who is charged with murder, shall be
admitted to bail as a matter of right because the imposable penalty is not reclusion
perpetua.

3. Under Article 315 of RPC as amended by PD No. 818, the principal penalty and
incremental penalty for estafa through bouncing check shall not exceed 30 years. If the
penalty exceeds 20 years, it shall be termed reclusion perpetua. However, reclusion
perpetua under PD 818 is not the prescribed penalty for the estafa, but merely describes
the penalty actually imposed on account of the amount of the fraud involved. Since the
penalty prescribed for this crime is not reclusion perpetua, this crime is bailable (Cenzon
vs. Santos, G.R. No. 164337, June 27, 2006). However, RA No. 10951 has amended
Article 315 of RPC by prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for estafa through
bouncing check iF the amount of defraud exceeds P8.8 million. Since the penalty
prescribed for this crime is reclusion perpetua, this crime is non-bailable.