RULE 114, SECTION 1 (Case 1)

G.R. No. 141529            June 6, 2001

PETITIONER: FRANCISCO YAP, JR., aka EDWIN YAP
RESPONDENT: COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:
Petitioner Yap was convicted of the crime of estafa for misappropriating amounts
equivalent to P5.5 Million. After the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of
Appeals, he filed a motion to fix bail pending appeal. The CA granted the motion and allowed
Yap to post bail in the amount of P5.5 Million on condition that he will secure “a
certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the
area and that he will remain to be so until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers
residence, it must be with prior notice to the court and private complainant.” He sought the
reduction of the bail but it 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 secure a certification/guaranty, claiming that
the same violates his liberty of abode and travel.

Issues: 
1. Whether or not CA committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the bail in the amount of
P5.5 million based on the petitioner’s civil liability.
2. Whether or not CA unduly restricted petitioner’s constitutional liberty of abode and travel
in imposing the other conditions for the grant of bail.

Ruling: 
1. YES, the bail was excessive
The Rules of Court never intended for the civil liability of the accused to be a guideline or
basis for determining the amount of bail. The amount should be high enough to assure the
presence of the accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfil this
purpose.

In this case, 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; which cannot be allowed 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.

2. No, it did not restrict the liberty of abode.

The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by petitioner,
are not absolute rights.  Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:

The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall
not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.  Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.

In this case, the CA order releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as
contemplated by the above provision. The condition imposed by the A is simply consistent with
the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself
available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence. Besides, a closer look at the
questioned condition will show that petitioner is not prevented from changing abode; he is
merely required to inform the court in case he does so.