their arrest is still pending with the Court.

Thus, when the

court a quo entered a plea of not guilty for them, there was
no valid waiver of their right to preclude them from raising
the same with the Court of Appeals or this Court. The
posting of bail bond was a matter of imperative necessity to
avert their incarceration; it should not be deemed as a
waiver of their right to assail their arrest.

Borlongan vs Pena
G.R. No. 143591
May 5, 2010
TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA,
ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERVO H. DIZON,
BENJAMIN DE LEON, DELFIN C. GONZALES, JR., and BEN YU
LIM, JR., Petitioners, vs. MAGDALENO M. PEA and HON.
MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., as Judge Designate of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City, Respondents

FACTS:
Respondent Pena instituted a civil case for recovery of
agents compensation and expenses, damages and
attorneys fees against Urban Bank and petitioners before
the RTC. Petitioners filed a Motion to dismiss, including
several documents as evidence. Atty Pena claims that the
documents were falsified. He subsequently filed his
Complaint-Affidavit with the City Prosecutor.

Leviste vs CA GR No 189122
Leviste vs CA
GR No 189122
March 17, 2010
Facts:
Jose Antonio Leviste was charged with the crime of murder
but was convicted by the RTC for the lesser crime of
homicide. He appealed the RTC's decision to the CA then he
field an application for admission to bail pending appeal,
due to his advanced age and health condition, and claiming
the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part.
The CA denied his application on the ground that the
discretion to extend bail during the course of appeal should
be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons.
That bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or
a prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility.
On this matter, Levisete questioned the ruling of the CA and
averred that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
the denial of his application for bail considering that none of
the conditions justifying denial of bail under the Sec. 5 (3)
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was present. That when the
penalty imposed by the trial court is more than six years
but not more than 20 years and the circumstances in the
above-mentioned provision are absent, bail must be
granted to an appellant pending appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion
in denying the application for bail of Leviste.
Ruling:
No, under Sec 5 of Rule 114 bail is discretionary, upon
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Under par.
3 of the same rule if the penalty impose is more than 6
years the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail be
cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to
the accused, of the following or other circumstances:
1
2
3
4

that he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual

delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated
by the circumstance of reiteration;
that he has previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without a valid justification;
that he committed the offense while under
probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
that the circumstances of his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or

The prosecutor found probable cause and the Informations

were filed before MTCC. Warrants of arrest were issued for
the petitioners / accused. Upon the issuance of the
warrant of arrest, petitioners immediately posted
bail as they wanted to avoid embarrassment, being then
officers of Urban Ban. On the scheduled date for the
arraignment, despite the petitioners refusal to enter a plea,
the court a quo entered a plea of Not Guilty for them. The
accused questioned the validity of the warrant of
arrest. However, the trial court ruled that posting of bail
constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in the issuance
of a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE: Can the petitioners still question the validity of the
warrant of arrest despite posting bail? YES
HELD:
The erstwhile ruling of this Court was that posting of bail
constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, that has already been superseded by
Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rule of Criminal
Procedure. The principle that the accused is precluded from
questioning the legality of the arrest after arraignment is
true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates
during trial, without previously invoking his objections
thereto.
Moreover, considering the conduct of the petitioner after
posting her personal bail bond, it cannot be argued that she
waived her right to question the finding of probable cause
and to assail the warrant of arrest issued against her by the
respondent judge. There must be clear and convincing
proof that the petitioner had an actual intention to
relinquish her right to question the existence of probable
cause. When the only proof of intention rests on what a
party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with,
and indicative of, an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally
relinquish the particular right that no other explanation of
his conduct is possible. x x x.
Herein petitioners filed the Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall
Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation on the same
day that they posted bail. Their bail bonds likewise
expressly contained a stipulation that they were not waiving
their right to question the validity of their arrest. On the
date of their arraignment, petitioners refused to enter
their plea due to the fact that the issue on the legality of

Issue/Answer:
WON the bondsmen still go after the property, on the
ground that the trial court did not render a judgment
against them/Yes.
Ratio:
Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure clearly provides for the procedure to be followed
before a bail bond may be forfeited and a judgment on the
bond rendered against the surety. There are two requisites
before the trial court judge may rule adversely against the
bondsmen in cases when the accused fails to appear in
court. First, the non-appearance by the accused is cause for
the
judge
to
summarily
declare
the
bond
as
forfeited. Second, the bondsmen, after the summary
forfeiture of the bond, are given 30 days within which to
produce the principal and to show cause why a judgment
should not be rendered against them for the amount of the
bond.
It is only after this 30-day period (during which the
bondsmen are afforded the opportunity to be heard by the
trial court) that the trial court may render a judgment on
the bond against the bondsmen. Judgment against the
bondsmen cannot be entered unless such judgment is
preceded by the order of forfeiture and an opportunity
given to the bondsmen to produce the accused or to adduce
satisfactory reason for their inability to do so.
In this case, no such judgment was ever issued and neither
has an amount been fixed for which the bondsmen may be
held liable. The law was not strictly observed and this
violated the bondsmens right to procedural due process.
The issue of good faith in buying the property at the auction
sale is not material. Since the execution and sale of the land
was invalid, the basis for which title to the land had been
issued has no more leg to stand on.

that there is undue risk that he may commit

another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary pending
appeal and it cannot be said that CA committed grave
abuse of discretion. After conviction by the trial court, the
presumption of innocence terminates and, accordingly, the
constitutional right to bail ends, from then on the grant of
bail is subject to judicial discretion.
A bench warrant is defined as a writ issued directly by a
judge to a law-enforcement officer, especially for the arrest
of a person who has been held in contempt, has disobeyed
a subpoena, or has to appear for a hearing or trial. The
provision on bench warrant is expressed under Section 9,
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court which states that [w]hen a
respondent released on bail fails to appear on the day fixed
for the hearing, the court may issue another order of arrest
or may order the bond for his appearance to be forfeited
and confiscated, or both.
Jurisprudence dictates that the primary requisite before a
bench warrant shall be issued is that the absent-party was
duly informed of the hearing date but unjustifiably failed to
attend so. (Magleo vs Judge De Juan-Quinagoran, A.M. No.
RTJ-12-2336, November 12, 2014)
1.

Mendoza vs. Alarma

G.R.
No.
151970. May 7, 2008
Facts: The accused in a criminal case failed to appear in
person before the court. Accordingly, the trial court
declared his bail forfeited. The trial court gave the
bondsmen a 30-day period to produce the accused or a
reasonable explanation for their non-production. However,
two years had passed from the time the court ordered the
forfeiture and still no judgment had been rendered against
the bondsmen for the amount of the bail. Instead, anorder
of execution was issued and the property was put up for
sale and was awarded to the highest bidders in good faith.