Why is there right to bail: It’s in respect of the presumption of innocence Because person is not yet

guilty, he should still have conditional liberty thus bail is a matter of right except in certain
circumstances.

Why arrest: To gain authority over the person and to prevent flight. It’s not to exact penalty.

Types of bail:

 Recognizance: you turn over the person to the authority of a person recognized by the court
 Cash bond
 Property Bond
 Surety Bond: Basically similar to insurance

Bail is only for criminal proceedings: Because under the constitution it states that all persons under
conviction shall be bailable

 And conviction is in the nature of a criminal proceeding

 It also flows from the presumption of innocence

Bail can be a matter of right or discretionary:

 Bail as a matter of right:

o All criminal cases MTC
o All cases prior to conviction by the RTC by the RTC not punishable by death, reclusion
pertua and life imprisonment
o For offenses prior to conviction punishable under reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is not strong.
 Bail as discretionary
o After conviction and that the penalty is not punishable by death reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment
o Pesons imposed penalty greater than 6 year and is not a recidivist or habitual delinquent
 Excessive bail is unconstitutional because it defeats the purpose.
o How to determine proper bail : SEE YAP vs. CA


Subpoena duces tecum

Subpoena ad testificundum

Articles 13-14 Doctrine List:

1. Yap vs. CA
  According to Section 5 of the Rules of Court, courts may exercise discretion in setting bail
when:
o The offense committed is not punishable by the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
o That the imposed penalty is exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years
o That the offender is a:
 Recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent
 An evader of sentence
 Committed an offense during probation, parole or under conditional liberty
 Indicates the possibility of flight if released on bail
 When there is a risk that the offender would commit a crime while on bail.
 However, the bail set must not be excessive. To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil
liability of which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,500,000.00).is to permit the
impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that accused is
charged of; this we cannot allow because bail is not intended as a punishment, nor as a
satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate
court.
o Bail is merely to compel the offender to reappear in court. Not to exact satisfaction
of civil liability.
 Ways to properly determine bail are:
o (a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
o (b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
o (c) Penalty for the offense charged;
o (d) Character and reputation of the accused;
o (e) Age and health of the accused;
o (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
o (g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
o (h) Forfeiture of other bail;
o (i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
o (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
2. Gov’t of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Judge Olalia
 Case reexamined the court’s decision on US vs. Purganan denying bail on extradition
proceedings in consideration of international law.
o International law places in primacy the sanctity of human rights and the worth of an
individual person
o Human Rights law are now generally accepted principles of international law thus
making it a part of the rule of the land.
o "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights." The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and
promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those
detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it
to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if
justified. In other words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make
available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their
 fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to
bail.
o In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons and Chirskoff v. Commission of Immigration, this
Court ruled that foreign nationals against whom no formal criminal charges have
been filed may be released on bail pending the finality of an order of deportation.
As previously stated, the Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of
Human Rights in sustaining the detainee’s right to bail.
 If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it
should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases,
there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all,
both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the
person detained is not in issue.
3. Enrille vs. Sandiganbayan
 General Rule: Bail is a matter of right prior conviction if the offense in not punishable by
reclusion perpetua or is not a capital punishment.
o Bail shall become discretionary upon conviction if the offense is not punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or if the punishment imposed exceeds 6
years and the offender is not a recidivist.
 A hearing is mandatory for the purpose of granting bail to a person charged with a capital
offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua. Hearings may be either summary or
otherwise as the courts deem fit.
 As such, the following guidelines must be followed:
o In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of
the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation
(Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended);
o 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 strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
o Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence
of the prosecution;
o If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of
the bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.
 Human rights dictate that humanitarian considerations must be taken into account on
whether bail.
o In recognition of the state’s obligation to respect the dignity of every persons, the
grant of bail applies not only to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to
extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing: (1 ) that the detainee will not be a
flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2 ) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances.

4. De La Camara vs. Enage

  Guidelines for establishing amount for bail.
o Before conviction, every person is bailable except if charged with capital offenses
when the evidence of guilt is strong. Such a right flows from the presumption of
innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of
freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
o Where, however, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by
requiring a sum that is excessive.
o Discretion, indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on the question of bail. We
must stress, however, that where conditions imposed upon a defendant seeking bail
would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the constitutional right to
bail, we will not hesitate to exercise our supervisorypowers to provide the required
remedy.
5. US vs. Luling
 Though criminal law dictates that an accused is innocent unless proven guilty and that the
burden of proof lies on the prosecution, no constitutional provision is violated by a statute
providing that proof by the state of some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie
evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of
showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention.
There certain facts only shall constitute prima facie evidence, and that then the burden is
put upon the defendant to show or to explain that such facts or acts are not criminal.
 Evidence has been presented by the prosecution. And the evidence shows prima facxie guilt.
The defender has the burden of rebutting it
6. Dumalao vs. COMELEC
7. People vs. Ordiz
8. People vs. Holgado
9. People vs. Regala
 Verdict of adding "with assault upon an agent of a person in authority"
o The information filed did not allege the essential elements of assault. It was not
alleged that the accused knew the victim as an agent of authority.
o Lack of objection cannot cure this deficiency. To do so would be convicting the
accused of a crime not properly alleged in the body of the information in violation of
his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
10. People vs. Regino
11. People vs. Ching
12. Conde vs. Rivera
13. Matteo vs. Villaluz
14. RE: Oliver
 We further hold that failure to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself against the charge of false and evasive swearing was a denial of due process of law.
A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be
heard in his defense -- a right to his day in court -- are basic in our system of jurisprudence,
 and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to
offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.
 A judge may punish and suppress an offender without notice and hearing only if the offense
committed involves a disturbance in the court’s conducting of business.
o A further qualification in this rule is that the judge may only punish an offense
without notice and hearing if:
 The court disturbing conduct is in the immediate presence of this court;
 that the judge has personal knowledge of contemptuous conduct;
 and the said act is "an open threat to the orderly procedure of the court and
such a flagrant defiance of the person and presence of the judge before the
public where if such conduct is not suppressed, demoralization of court’s
authority will follow "
15. Tampar vs. Usman
 Court ruled that the Islamic procedure of yamin is violative of due process guaranteed by
the constitution.
 Yamin provides that if the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the defendant shall
take an oath and judgment shall be rendered in his favor by the Court. On the other hand,
should defendant refuse to take an oath, plaintiff may affirm his claim under oath, in which
case judgment shall be rendered in his favor.
 Said provision effectively deprives a litigant of his constitutional right to due process. It
denies a party his right to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them.
16. Carredo vs. People
 It is important to state that the provision of the Constitution authorizing the trial in absentia
of the accused in case of his non-appearance after arraignment despite due notice simply
means that he thereby waives his right to meet the witnesses face to face among others. An
express waiver of appearance after arraignment, as in this case, is of the same effect.
However, such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the
prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for
purposes of identification by its witnesses which is vital for the conviction of the accused.
Such waiver of a right of the accused does not mean a release of the accused from his
obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so required. 7 The accused may
waive his right but not his duty or obligation to the court.