SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
RIGHT TO BAIL
Right to bail. [Sec. 13, Art. Ill: “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. The right to bail shall not
be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required. ’’]
DEFINITION: Bail is the security given for
the release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
conditioned upon his appearance before
any court as may be required [Rule 114,
Sec. 1, Rules of Court], The right to bail
emanates from the right to be presumed
innocent.
WHEN THE RIGHT MAY BE INVOKED,
BY WHOM. The right to bail emanates
from the right to be presumed innocent. It
is accorded to a person in custody of the
law who may by reason of the
presumption of innocence he enjoys, be
allowed provisional liberty upon filing a
security to guarantee his appearance
before any court, as required under
specific circumstances [People v.
Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, October 27,
2006].
Any person under detention, even if no
formal charges have yet been filed, can
invoke the right to bail [Teehankee v.
Rovira, 75 Phil 634; People v. San Diego,
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
26 SCRA 522], However, it is a basic
principle that the right to bail can be
availed of only by a person who is in
custody of the law or otherwise deprived
of his liberty, and it would be premature,
not to say incongruous, to file a petition
for bail for someone whose freedom has
yet to be curtailed [Cortes v. Judge Catral,
infra.]. See Rule 114, Rules of Court
which provides, among others, that “any
person in custody who is not yet charged
in court may apply for bail with any court
in the province, city or municipality
where he is held”.
In Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217,
where the petitioners were charged with
rebellion complexed with murder and
multiple frustrated murder, the Court
ruled that based on the doctrine
enunciated in People v. Hernandez, the
questioned information filed against the
petitioners must be read as charging
simple rebellion only; hence the
petitioners are entitled to bail before final
conviction as a matter of right. In People v.
Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130, it was held
that the right to bail cannot be denied one
who is charged with rebellion, a bailable
offense.
In Al-Ghoulv. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
126859, September 01, 2001, since the
penalty for illegal possession of firearms
had been reduced to less than reclusion
perpetua, the petitioners were deemed
entitled to bail as a matter of right before
their conviction by the trial court.
In Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Page | 1
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

129670, February 1, 2000, the Supreme a matter of right in order to determine the
Court held that the trial court was in error amount of bail.
when the latter required the arraignment
of the accused as a prerequisite to the
approval of the bail bond. In the cases
when bail is authorized, it should be Q: What are the four (4) duties of
granted before arraignment, otherwise, Judge?
the accused may be precluded from filing
ANS
a motion to quash. Furthermore, the court
would be assured of the presence of the 1. Notify the prosecutor after hearing
accused at the arraignment precisely by of the application for bail or
granting bail and ordering his presence at require him to submit his
any stage of the proceeding. recommendation.
2. Conduct the hearing of the
GABBY RECIT
application for bail.
3. Decide whether the evidence of
Q: What is a bail?
guilt of the accused is strong based
ANS - Bail is the security given for the
on summary hearing.
release of a person in custody of the law,
4. If the guilt of the accused is not
furnished by him or a bondsman,
strong, discharge the accused upon
conditioned upon his appearance before
the approval of
any court as may be required [Rule 114,
the bail bond, otherwise, petition
Sec. 1, Rules of Court], The right to bail
should be denied.
emanates from the right to be presumed
innocent.

Q: What are the kinds of bail?

Basco vs. Rapatalo [Adm. Matter No.
ANS – (1) as a matter of right; (2) RTJ-96-1335, March 5, 1997]
discretionary
BAIL, NATURE. A better understanding of
Q: What are the forms of bail? bail as an aspect of criminal procedure
entails appreciating its nature and
ANS – (a) cash deposits; (b) corporate purposes. "Bail" is the security required
surety; (c) property bond; (d) by the court and given by the accused to
recognizance ensure that the accused appears before
the proper court at the scheduled time
Q: is hearing required for bail? and place to answer the charges brought
against him or her. In theory, the only
ANS – Yes. Hearing is required even if it is function of bail is to ensure the

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 2
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

appearance of the defendant at the time determination of whether or not the

set for trial. The sole purpose of confining
the accused in jail before conviction, it has
been observed, is to assure his presence
at the trial. In other words, if the denial of
bail is authorized in capital offenses, it is
only in theory that the proof being strong,
the defendant would flee, if he has the
opportunity, rather than face the verdict
of the court. Hence the exception to the
fundamental right to be bailed should be
applied in direct ratio to the extent of
probability of evasion of the prosecution.
In practice, bail has also been used to
prevent the release of an accused who
might otherwise be dangerous to society
or whom the judges might not want to
release."
It is in view of the abovementioned
practical function of bail that it is not a
matter of right in cases where the person
is charged with a capital offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. Article 114, section
7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, states,
"No person charged with a capital offense,
or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment when the
evidence of guilt is strong, shall be
admitted to bail regardless of the stage of
the criminal action."
HEARING IS MANDATORY WHEN AN
APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS MADE. When
the grant of bail is discretionary, the
prosecution has the burden of showing
that the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong. However, the
evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter
of judicial discretion, remains with the
judge. "This discretion by the very nature
of things, may rightly be exercised only
after the evidence is submitted to the
court at the hearing. Since the discretion
is directed to the weight of the evidence
and since evidence cannot properly be
weighed if not duly exhibited or produced
before the court, it is obvious that a
proper exercise of judicial discretion
requires that the evidence of guilt be
submitted to the court, the petitioner
having the right of cross examination and
to introduce his own evidence in
rebuttal."
To be sure, the discretion of the trial court,
"is not absolute nor beyond control. It
must be sound, and exercised within
reasonable bounds. Judicial discretion, by
its very nature involves the exercise of the
judge's individual opinion and the law has
wisely provided that its exercise be
guided by well-known rules which, while
allowing the judge rational latitude for the
operation of his own individual views,
prevent them from getting out of control.
An uncontrolled or uncontrollable
discretion on the part of a judge is a
misnomer. It is a fallacy. Lord Mansfield,
speaking of the discretion to be exercised
in granting or denying bail said: "But
discretion when applied to a court of
justice means sound discretion guided by
law.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 3
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

It must be governed by rule, not by the judge is mandated to conduct a

humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague
and fanciful; but legal and regular."
Consequently, in the application for bail of
a person charged with a capital offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, a hearing, whether
summary or otherwise in the discretion of
the court, must actually be conducted to
determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong. "A
summary hearing means such brief and
speedy method of receiving and
considering the evidence of guilt as is
practicable and consistent with the
purpose of hearing which is merely to
determine the weight of evidence for the
purposes of bail.
On such hearing, the court does not sit to
try the merits or to enter into any nice
inquiry as to the weight that ought to be
allowed to the evidence for or against the
accused, nor will it speculate on the
outcome of the trial or on what further
evidence may be therein offered and
admitted. The course of inquiry may be
left to the discretion of the court which
may confine itself to receiving such
evidence as has reference to substantial
matters, avoiding unnecessary
thoroughness in the examination and
cross examination." If a party is denied
the opportunity to be heard, there would
be a violation of procedural due process.
hearing even in cases where the
prosecution chooses to just file a
comment or leave the application for bail
to the discretion of the court.
Corollarily, another reason why hearing
of a petition for bail is required, as can be
gleaned from the abovecited case, is for
the court to take into consideration the
guidelines set forth in Section 6, Rule 114
of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount
of bail. This Court, in a number of cases
held that even if the prosecution fails to
adduce evidence in opposition to an
application for bail of an accused, the
court may still require that it answer
questions in order to ascertain not only
the strength of the state's evidence but
also the adequacy of the amount of bail.
DUTIES OF THE COURTS WHENEVER
AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS FILED
BEFORE THEM. In the light of the
applicable rules on bail and the
jurisprudential principles just enunciated,
this Court reiterates the duties of the trial
judge in case an application for bail is
filed:
(1) 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);

Since the determination of whether or not (2) Conduct a hearing of the application
the evidence of guilt against the accused for bail regardless of whether or not the
is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, prosecution refuses to present evidence

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 4
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

to show that the guilt of the accused is

strong for the purpose of enabling the
court to exercise its sound discretion
(Sections 7 and 8, supra);
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt
of the accused is strong based on the
summary of evidence of the prosecution
(Baylon v. Sison, supra);
(4) 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.
INOCENCIO BASCO vs. JUDGE LEO H.
RAPATALO
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335. March 5, 1997,
ROMERO, J.
Since the determination of whether or not
the evidence of guilt against the accused
is strong is a matter of judicial discretion,
the judge is mandated to conduct a
hearing even in cases where the
prosecution chooses to just file a
comment or leave the application for bail
to the discretion of the court.
Facts: The complainant Inocencio Basco,
father of the victim, charged respondent
Judge Leo M. Rapatalo of RTC, Branch 32,
Agoo, La Union with gross ignorance or
willful disregard of established rule of law
for granting bail to an accused Roger
Morente in a murder case without
receiving evidence and conducting a
hearing.
In his comment, respondent Judge alleged
that he granted the petition based on the
prosecutor's option not to oppose the
petition as well as the latter's
recommendation setting the bailbond in
the amount of P80,000.00. He averred
that when the prosecution chose not to
oppose the petition for bail, he had the
discretion on whether to approve it or not.
Issue: Whether a petition for bail can be
granted without conducting a hearing.
Held: No. When the grant of bail is
discretionary, the prosecution has the
burden of showing that the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong.
However, the determination of whether
or not the evidence of guilt is strong,
being a matter of judicial discretion,
remains with the judge.
"This discretion by the very nature of
things, may rightly be exercised only after
the evidence is submitted to the court at
the hearing. Since the discretion is
directed to the weight of the evidence and
since evidence cannot properly be
weighed if not duly exhibited or produced
before the court, it is obvious that a
proper exercise of judicial discretion
requires that the evidence of guilt be
submitted to the court, the petitioner
having the right of cross examination and
to introduce his own evidence in
rebuttal."

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 5
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Consequently, in the application for bail of
a person charged with a capital offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, a hearing, whether
summary or otherwise in the discretion of
the court, must actually be conducted to
determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong. If a
party is denied the opportunity to be
heard, there would be a violation of
procedural due process.
A hearing is likewise required if the
prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in
opposition to the application to grant and
fix bail. Corollarily, another reason why
hearing of a petition for bail is required is
for the court to take into consideration
the guidelines set forth in Section 6, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the
amount of bail. The absence of objection
from the prosecution is never a basis for
granting bail to the accused. It is the
court's determination after a hearing that
the guilt of the accused is not strong that
forms the basis for granting bail.
Waiver of the right to bail. The right to
bail is another of the constitutional rights
which can be waived. It is a right which is
personal to the accused and whose waiver
would not be contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person
with a right recognized by law [People v.
Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130],
a) The failure of the accused to call the
attention of the trial court to the
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
unresolved petition for bail is deemed a
waiver of the right to bail. Furthermore,
the conviction of the accused renders the
petition for bail moot and academic
[People v. Manes, G.R. No. 122737,
February 17, 1999],
Bail and suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus. The right to
bail is not impaired by the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
[Sec. 13, Art. III].
Penalty at the time of the application for
bail must be considered if more favorable
to the accused in the case of People vs
Judge Donato.
People vs. Judge Donato [G.R. No.
79269, June 5, 1991]
THE CHARACTER OF BAIL SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY THE LAW IN FORCE
AT THE TIME THAT THE APPLICATION
IS PENDING. Unquestionably, at the time
the original and the amended
Informations for rebellion and the
application for bail were filed before the
court below the penalty imposable for the
offense for which the private respondent
was charged was reclusion perpetua to
death. During the pendency of the
application for bail Executive Order No.
187 was issued by the President, by virtue
of which the penalty for rebellion as
originally provided for in Article 135 of
Page | 6
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the Revised Penal Code was restored. The
restored law was the governing law at the
time the respondent court resolved the
petition for bail.
We agree with the respondent court that
bail cannot be denied to the private
respondent for he is charged with the
crime of rebellion as defined in Article
134 of the Revised Penal Code to which is
attached the penalty of prision mayor and
a fine not exceeding P20,000.00. It is,
therefore, a bailable offense under Section
13 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution
which provides thus:
"Sec. 13. 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 prescribed by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be required."
Section 3, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court,
as amended, also provides: "Bail, a
matter of right: exception. — All persons
in custody shall, before final conviction, be
entitled to bail as a matter of right, except
those charged with a capital offense or an
offense which, under the law at the time of
its commission and at the time of the
application for bail, is punishable by
reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt
is strong."
Therefore, before conviction bail is either
a matter of right or of discretion. It is a
matter of right when the offense charged
is punishable by any penalty lower than
reclusion perpetua. To that extent the
right is absolute.
Upon the other hand, if the offense
charged is punishable by reclusion
perpetua bail becomes a matter of
discretion. It shall be denied if the
evidence of guilt is strong. The court's
discretion is limited to determining
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.
But once it is determined that the
evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also
becomes a matter of right. In Teehankee
vs. Director of Prisons, supra., We held:
"The provision on bail in our Constitution
is patterned after similar provisions
contained in the Constitution of the
United States and that of many states of
the Union. And it is said that:
'The Constitution of the United States and
the constitution of the many states
provide that all persons shall be bailable
by sufficient sureties, except for capital
offenses, where the proof is evident or the
presumption of guilt is great, and, under
such provisions, bail is a matter of right
which no court or judge can properly
refuse, in all cases not embraced in the
exceptions. Under such provisions bail is
a matter of right even in cases of capital
offenses, unless the proof of guilt is
evident or the presumption thereof is
great!"

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 7
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Accordingly, the prosecution does not

have the right to present evidence for the
denial of bail in the instances where bail
is a matter of right. However, in the cases
where the grant of bail is discretionary,
due process requires that the prosecution
must be given an opportunity to present,
within a reasonable time, all the evidence
that it may desire to introduce before the
court should resolve the motion for bail.
THE RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE WAIVED.
We hereby rule that the right to bail is
another of the constitutional rights which
can be waived. It is a right which is
personal to the accused and whose waiver
would not be contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person
with a right recognized by law.
Even the 1987 Constitution expressly
recognizes a waiver of rights guaranteed
by its Bill of Rights. Section 12(1) of
Article III thereof on the right to remain
silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his
own choice states:
". . . These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel."
This provision merely particularizes the
form and manner of the waiver; it,
nevertheless, clearly suggests that the
other rights may be waived in some other
form or manner provided such waiver
will not offend Article 6 of the Civil Code.
PEOPLE VS DONATO G.R. No. 79269,
June 5, 1991,Davide, Jr., J.
Facts: In the criminal case filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, private
respondent Salas and his co-accused were
charged for the crime of rebellion under
Article 134, in relation to Article 135 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC). At the time
the Information was filed, Salas and his
co-accused were in military custody
following their arrest. A day after the
filing of the original information, a
petition for habeas corpus for Salas and
his co-accused was filed with the Supreme
Court which was dismissed in the Court’s
Resolution on the basis of the agreement
of the parties under which Salas "will
remain in legal custody and will face trial
before the court having custody over his
person" and the warrants for the arrest of
his co-accused are deemed recalled and
they shall be immediately released but
shall submit themselves to the court
having jurisdiction over their person.
Salas filed with the trial court a Motion to
Quash the Information. Respondent Judge
denied the motion to quash. Subsequently,
Salas filed a petition for bail, which herein
petitioner opposed on the ground that
since rebellion became a capital offense
under the provisions of Presidential
Decrees (PD), which amended Article 135
of the RPC, by imposing the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death on those who
promote, maintain, or head a rebellion so

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 8
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the accused is no longer entitled to bail as
evidence of his guilt is strong.
On 5 June 1987, the President issued an
Executive Order (EO) repealing, among
others, the PDs and restoring to full force
and effect Article 135 of the RPC. Thus,
the original penalty for rebellion, prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed
P20,000.00, was restored.
Issue: Whether or not the right to bail
may, under certain circumstances, be
denied to a person who is charged with a
bailable offense
he has expressly waived his right to bail.
This Court has recognized waivers of
constitutional rights such as, for example,
the right against unreasonable searches
and seizures; the right to counsel and to
remain silent; and the right to be heard.
The only limitation to the waiver of right
to bail is that provide in Art. 6 of the Civil
Code. Rights may be waived, unless the
waiver is contrary to law, public order,
public policy, morals, or good customs, or
prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.

Held: Yes. Bail cannot be denied to Salas
for he is charged with the crime of
rebellion as defined in Article 134 of the
Revised Penal Code to which is attached
the penalty of prision mayor and a fine
not exceeding P20,000.00. It is, therefore,
a bailable offense under Section 13 of
Article III of the 1987 Constitution which
provides thus: 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
prescribed by law. The right to bail shall
not be impaired even when the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Salas has, however, waived his right to
bail in the criminal case. In agreeing to
remain in legal custody even during the
pendency of the trial of his criminal case,
People vs. Fortes [G.R. No. 90643, June
25, 1993]
BAIL CANNOT BE GRANTED ON AN
ACCUSED WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED
OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE EVEN IF THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS
APPEALED. The clear implication,
therefore, is that if an accused who is
charged with a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua is convicted by the
trial court and sentenced to suffer such a
penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on
the part of the accused nor of discretion
on the part of the court. In such a
situation, the court would not have only
determined that the evidence of guilt is
strong — which would have been
sufficient to deny bail even before
conviction — it would have likewise ruled
that the accused's guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not
then be granted to the accused during the

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 9
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

pendency of his appeal from the judgment
of conviction. Construing Section 3, Rule
114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, as amended, this Court, in the
en banc Resolution of 15 October 1991 in
People vs. Ricardo Cortez, ruled that:
"Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an
accused who is charged with a capital
offense or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be
entitled to bail as a matter of right even if
he appeals the case to this Court since his
conviction clearly imports that the
evidence of his guilt of the offense
charged is strong."
PEOPLE VS FORTES
G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993, Davide,
JR., J.
denying his application for bail, filed after
his conviction, to secure his provisional
liberty pending the resolution of his
appeal.
Issue: Whether or not before conviction
by final judgment, the accused enjoys the
constitutional presumption of innocence,
and is therefore entitled to bail as a
matter of right
Ruling: No. It is clear from Section 13,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution and
Section 3, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
Court, as amended, that: . . . before
conviction, bail is either a matter of right
or of discretion. It is a matter of right
when the offense charged is punishable
by any penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua. To that extent the right is
absolute. xxx xxx xxx

Facts: The conviction of Agustin Fortes
for the rape of a 13-year old sixth grade
pupil and the denial by the trial court of
his application for bail pending his appeal
from the judgment of conviction are
questioned in these consolidated cases.
In G.R. No. 90643, the accused appeals
from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court. The court a quo, in its Decision,
found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and pay the victim the sum of
P20,000.00. In G.R. No. 91155, the subject
matter we are concerned with, the
accused seeks to annul and set aside two
related orders of the said trial court
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
Upon the other hand, if the offense
charged is punishable by reclusion
perpetua, bail becomes a matter of
discretion. It shall be denied if the
evidence of guilt is strong. The court's
discretion is limited to determining
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.
But once it is determined that the
evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also
becomes a matter of right. . . .
The clear implication, therefore is that if
an accused who is charged with a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua is
convicted by the trial court and sentenced
to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a
matter of right on the part of the accused

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 10
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

nor of discretion on the part of the court. punishable by preclusion perpetua is

In such a situation, the court would not
have only determined that the evidence of
guilt is strong which would have been
sufficient to deny bail even before
conviction – it would have likewise ruled
that the accused's guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not
then be granted to the accused during the
pendency of his appeal from the judgment
of conviction.
In the instant case, the rape for which the
accused was indicted is punishable by
reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code; he was
convicted therefor and subsequently
sentenced to serve that penalty. It is thus
evident that the trial court correctly
denied his application for bail during the
pendency of the appeal.
NACHURA:
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT F BAIL
a) When charged with an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua for
higher and evidence of guilt is strong. In
Carpió v. Judge Maglalang, 196 SCRA 41,
the Supreme Court said that where the
accused is charged, with an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua, it is the
duty of the judge to determine if evidence
of guilt is strong for purposes of deciding
whether bail may be granted or not. In
People v. Fortes, and Fortes v. Judge Guam
223 SCRA 619, it was held that if an
accused who is charged with a crime?
convicted by the trial court and sentenced
to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a
matter of right on the part of the accused
nor a matter of discretion on the part of
the court; an application fori bail must be
denied.
In People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA 402, the
Supreme Court held that where a person
has been convicted by the trial court and
sentenced to the penalty of imprisonment
for 22 years, the penalty imposed is
classified as reclusion perpetua; and
while the case is on appeal, bail may be
denied, because the offense is punishable
by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of
guilt is strong.
b) Traditionally, the right to bail is not
available to the military. In Comendador
V. de Villa, 200 SCRA 80, it was held that
traditionally, the right to bail has not been
recognized and is not available to the
military, as an exception to the Bill of
Rights.
This much was suggested in Arula v.
Espino, 28 SCRA 540, where the Court
observed that "the right to speedy trial is
given more emphasis in the military
where the right to bail does not exist”.
The denial; of the right to bail to the
military does not violate the equal
protection clause because there is
substantial distinction between the
military and civilians.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 11
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
GABBY RECIT:
Q: Are members of the PNP entitled to
bail?
ANS – Yes. The principle in the case of
comendador is only applicable when
members of the AFP are undergoing court
martial proceedings. If AFP members and
officers are charged before regular courts,
then they are entitled to bail.
Commendador vs. De Villa [G.R. No.
93177, August 2, 1991]
THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS NOT AVAILABLE
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES. We find that the right to bail
invoked by the private respondents in G.R.
Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been
recognized and is not available in the
military, as an exception to the general
rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. This
much was suggested in Arula, where we
observed that "the right to a speedy trial
is given more emphasis in the military
where the right to bail does not exist."
The justification for this exception was
well explained by the Solicitor General as
follows:
The unique structure of the military
should be enough reason to exempt
military men from the constitutional
coverage on the right to bail. Aside from
structural peculiarity, it is vital to note
that mutinous soldiers operate within the
framework of democratic system, are
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by
the government for the discharge of their
duties and responsibilities and are paid
out of revenues collected from the people.
All other insurgent elements carry out
their activities outside of and against the
existing political system.
National security considerations should
also impress upon this Honorable Court
that release on bail of respondents
constitutes a damaging precedent.
Imagine a scenario of say 1,000 putschists
roaming the streets of the Metropolis on
bail, or if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order
were sustained, on 'provisional" bail. The
sheer number alone is already
discomforting. But, the truly disquieting
thought is that they could freely resume
their heinous activity which could very
well result in the overthrow of duly
constituted authorities, including this
Honorable Court, and replace the same
with a system consonant with their own
concept of government and justice.
The argument that denial from the
military of the right to bail would violate
the equal protection clause is not
acceptable. This guaranty requires equal
treatment only of persons or things
similarly situated and does not apply
where the subject of the treatment is
substantially different from others. The
accused officers can complain if they are
denied bail and other members of the
military are not. But they cannot say they
have been discriminated against because
Page | 12
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

they are not allowed the same right that is authority either to set aside its ruling
extended to civilians. denying bail to the private respondents.

Issue: Whether or not the right to bail

COMMENDADOR VS DE VILLA
G.R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991, Cruz, J.
Facts: These four cases have been
consolidated because they involve
practically the same parties and related
issues arising from the same incident. The
petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948
and the private respondents in G.R. Nos.
95020 and 97454 are officers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines facing
prosecution for their alleged participation
in the failed coup d' etat that took place
on December 1 to 9, 1989.
In G.R. No. 93177, which is a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,
they are questioning the conduct of the
Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel
constituted to investigate the charges
against them and the creation of the
General Court Martial (GCM) convened to
try them.
In G.R. No. 96948, the petitioners, besides
challenging the legality of GCM No. 14,
seek certiorari against its ruling denying
them the right to peremptory challenge as
granted by Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408.
In G.R. No. 95020, the subject matter we
are concerned with, the orders of the
respondent judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City are assailed on
certiorari on the ground that he has no
jurisdiction over GCM No. 14 and no
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
invoked by the private respondents in G.R.
Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been
recognized and is not available in the
military, as an exception to the general
rule embodied in the Bill of Rights
Held: Yes. The right to bail invoked by the
private respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020
has traditionally not been recognized and
is not available in the military, as an
exception to the general rule embodied in
the Bill of Rights. The right to a speedy
trial is given more emphasis in the
military where the right to bail does not
exist. The unique structure of the military
should be enough reason to exempt
military men from the constitutional
coverage on the right to bail. National
security considerations should also
impress upon this Honorable Court that
release on bail of respondents constitutes
a damaging precedent.
The argument that denial from the
military of the right to bail would violate
the equal protection clause is not
acceptable. This guaranty requires equal
treatment only of persons or things
similarly situated and do not apply where
the subject of the treatment is
substantially different from others. The
accused officers can complain if they are
denied bail and other members of the
military are not. But they cannot say they
have been discriminated against because

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 13
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
they are not allowed the same right that is
extended to civilians.
NACHURA
Duty of the Court when accused is
charged with an offense punishably by
reclusion perpetua or higher: A hearing
on the motion for bail must be conducted
by the judge to determine whether or not
the evidence of guilt is strong. Whether
the motion is resolved in summary
proceedings or in the course of regular
trial, the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to present all the evidence
that it may wish to introduce on the
probable guilt of the accused before the
court resolves the motion for bail. Even if
the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence, or fails to interpose an objection
to the motion for] bail, it is still
mandatory for the court to conduct a
hearing, or ask searching and clarificatory
questions from which it may infer the
strength of the evidence of guilt, or lack of
it, against the accused [Baylon v. Judge
Sisón, 243 SCRA 284; Marallag v. Judge
Cloribel. A.M, No. 00-1529-RTJ, April 09,
2002].
a) In Tucay v. Judge Domagas, 242 SCRA
110, the Court found the Judge to have
violated the Rules of Court, because
although the Provincial Prosecutor
interposed no objection to the petition for
bail filed by the accused, it was still
incumbent upon the Judge to set the
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
petition for hearing and diligently
ascertain from the prosecution whether
the latter was not really contesting the
bail application.
In Delos Santos-Reyes v. Judge Montesa,
247 SCRA 85, the Court sanctioned the
Judge who, after examining the records of
the cases forwarded to him by the
prosecution, and after finding the
existence of probable cause, instead of
issuing the corresponding warrants of
arrest for the purpose of acquiring
jurisdiction over the persons of the
accused, ex mero motu granted bail to the
accused despite the absence (because of
prior withdrawal) of a petition for bail;
and worse, the lack of hearing wherein
the prosecution could have been accorded
the right to present evidence showing
that the evidence of guilt was strong.
In Buzon v. Judge Velasco, 253 SCRA 601,
the Court reiterated the rule that bail is
not a matter of right in cases where the
offense for which the accused stands
charged is punishable by reclusion
perpetua when the evidence of guilt is
strong. While it is true that the weight of
the evidence adduced is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court, such
discretion may be exercised only after the
hearing called to ascertain the degree of
guilt of the accused. At the hearing, the
court should assure that the prosecution
is afforded the opportunity to adduce
evidence relevant to the factual issue,
with the applicant having the right of
cross- examination and to introduce his
own evidence in rebuttal. Without a
Page | 14
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

hearing, the judge could not possibly where it is authorized, bail should be
assess the weight of the evidence against granted before arraignment, otherwise
the accused before granting the latter’s the accused may be precluded from filing
application for bail. a motion to quash.

In Basco v. Judge Rapatalo, A.M. No. RTJ-
96- 1335, March 5, 1997, the Supreme
Court reiterated that in the application for
bail of a person charged with a capital
offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing,
whether summary or otherwise in the
discretion of the court, must actually be
conducted to determine whether or not
evidence of guilt against the accused is
strong. See also People v. Manes, G.R. No.
122737, February 17, 1999; Tabao v.
Judge Espina, A.M. RTJ-96-1347, June 29,
1999; Marzan-Gelacio v. Judge Flores,
A.M. RTJ-99- 1498]. .
c) The court’s order granting or refusing
bail must contain a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution [People v.
Judge Cabral, G.R. No. 131909, February
18, 1999]. The assessment of the
evidence presented during a bail hearing
is intended only for the purpose of
granting or denying an application for the
provisional release of the accused. Not
being a final assessment, courts tend to be
liberal in their appreciation of evidence.
But it is not an uncommon occurrence
than an accused person granted bail is
convicted in due course [People v.
Palarca, G.R. No. 146020 May 29 2002],’

b) The hearing on a petition for bail need

not at all times precede arraignment,
because the rule is that a person deprived GABBY RECIT
of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or
voluntary surrender may apply for bail as Q: Is bail required to comply with the3-
soon as he is deprived of his liberty, even day notice rule?
before a complaint or information is filed ANS – Yes, in the case of Baylon vs Judge
against him. When bail is a matter of right, Sison
the accused may apply for and be granted
bail even prior to arraignment. Even Q: What are the three (3)
when the charge is a capital offense, if the circumstances under section 5, Rule
court finds that the accused is entitled to 114?
bail because the evidence of guilt is not ANS - Section 5 of Rule 114
strong, he may be granted provisional
liberty even before arraignment [Serapio Q: In determining whether accused is
v. Sandiganbayan, supra.]. In Lavides v. admitted to bail, are aggravating
Court of Appeals, infra.,the accused filed circumstance considered?
a petition for bail as well as a motion to ANS – No
quash, and the Court said that in cases

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 15
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Q: What is a three (3) day motion rule?
ANS – In the case of Baylon - it is
mandatory in order to allow the
prosecution to secure reasonable time to
adequately prepare for the case.
Baylon vs. Judge Sison [Adm. Matter No.
92-7-360-0, April 6, 1995]
APPLICATION FOR BAIL SHALL
FOLLOW THE 3-DAY MOTION RULE.
Complainant alleges that the prosecution
was not given notice of the petition for
bail at least three (3) days prior to the
scheduled hearing thereof. It bears
emphasis that the petition for bail was
filed in court and a copy thereof served on
the prosecution on December 21, 1991, a
Saturday, and was craftily set for hearing
on December 23, 1991, thereby giving the
prosecution only one day, a Sunday at
that, to prepare its opposition thereto.
The stratagem employed by the defense
which virtually deprived the prosecution
of an opportunity to adequately counter
the representations in its petition is too
obvious to be ignored. Yet respondent
judge condoned the same and aggravated
the situation by the unusual and
precipitate haste with which the petition
was granted by respondent judge.
On top of that, he exacerbated his
disregard of settled rules of procedure by
justifying his non-observance of the
three-day notice rule under Section 4,
Rule 15 of the Rules of Court on the
theory that the petition for bail is an
urgent motion and may therefore be
heard on shorter notice. Such
ratiocination, which espouses and reveals
a distorted notion as to the true nature
and conditions of the right to bail, does
violence to the well-established rule of
law that bail is not a matter of right and
requires a hearing where the accused is
charged with an offense which is
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. Given this
contingency, respondent judge should
have carefully scrutinized the validity of
the petition for bail and the veracity of its
allegations, rather than cavalierly
considering
it outright as an urgent motion.
There are two main arguments invoked
and relied on by respondent judge to
support and justify his grant of bail to the
accused, namely, that time was of the
essence, considering that the accused had
been detained since October 21, 1991;
and that the prosecution failed to
interpose an objection to the granting of
bail and to ask for an opportunity to
prove the strength of the evidence of guilt
against the accused.
We reject the first tenuous proposition
that time was of the essence, since the
ambient circumstances obtaining prior to
the grant of bail could not but have
cautioned respondent judge to be more
circumspect in entertaining and resolving
the petition therefore. First, the accused
were charged with double murder, each

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 16
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

of which is punishable by reclusion accused filed a petition for bail on a

perpetua to death, hence bail is not a
matter of right.
Second, no bail was recommended in the
information which was filed on the bases
of the sworn statements of several
eyewitnesses to the incident, thus
constituting clear and strong evidence of
the guilt of all the accused. Third, at the
time of the application for bail, there was
still pending a reinvestigation of the case
being conducted by the Office of the City
Prosecutor. It must be noted that the
reinvestigation was at the instance of the
accused themselves, hence any resultant
delay caused by the conduct thereof is
naturally and logically attributable to
them.
And, finally, the guileful setting of the
hearing of the petition for bail on
December 23, 1991, when the same was
filed only on December 21, 1991 which
was a Saturday, readily casts doubt on the
good faith in and the regularity of the
procedure adopted by the defense.
BAYLON V. SISON
A.M. No. 92-7-360-0, April 6, 1995,
Regalado, J.
Facts: The Office of the City Prosecutor in
Dagupan City filed an information for
double murder against several accused
and thereafter raffled to respondent judge.
The accused filed a petition for
reinvestigation which was granted by the
trial court. During the reinvestigation, the
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
Saturday, and requested that it be set for
hearing the immediately following
Monday.
On this latter date, the prosecution filed
an opposition to the petition for bail
alleging, among others, that the
information was filed on the bases of the
sworn statements of several eyewitnesses
to the incident which constitutes clear
and strong evidence of the guilt of all the
accused. Nevertheless, a hearing on the
petition was purportedly held by the trial
court and bail was granted for the
provisional liberty of each of the accused.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by
the prosecution but the same was denied
by respondent judge. Significantly, the
orders granting bail, and that denying
reconsideration thereof, became the
subject of a petition for certiorari filed by
the prosecution and were subsequently
annulled and set aside by CA.
The private complainant filed a motion
for respondent judge to inhibit himself
from the case. Respondent judge denied
the motion to inhibit and later also denied
the motion for reconsideration. To
support and justify his grant of bail to the
accused, respondent judge avers that time
was of the essence, considering that the
accused had been detained since October
21, 1991 and that the prosecution failed
to interpose an objection to the granting
of bail and to ask for an opportunity to
prove the strength of the evidence of guilt
against the accused.

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 17
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Issue: Whether or not respondent judge
was justified in his grant of bail to the
accused.
Held: While the determination of whether
or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a
matter of judicial discretion, this
discretion may be exercised only after
evidence is submitted to the court. The
prosecution must be given an opportunity
to present, within a reasonable time, all
the evidence that it may desire to
introduce before the court may resolve
the motion for bail. If the prosecution
should be denied such an opportunity,
there would be a violation of procedural
due process, and the order of the court
granting bail should be considered void
on that ground.
Even if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence or fails to interpose an objection
to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory
for the court to conduct a hearing or ask
searching and clarificatory questions
from which it may infer the strength of
the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it,
against the accused.
The obstinate persistence of respondent
judge in posturing that he did conduct a
hearing is belied by the fact that the order
granting bail leaves much to be desired. It
does not contain the requisite summary of
the evidence presented by the parties and
necessary to support the grant of bail.
NACHURA
Bail is either a matter of right, or at the
judge’s discretion, or it may be denied
[Rule 114, Rules of Court],
a) Bail, a matter of right. All persons in
custody shall
[i] before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and
[ii] before conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be
admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as prescribed by law or this
Rule [Sec. 4, Rule 114].
b) Bail, when discretionary. Upon
conviction by the Regional Trial Court
of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the court, on
application, may admit the accused to
bail. The court, in its discretion, may
allow the accused to continue on
provisional liberty under the same bail
bond during the period to appeal subject
to the consent of the bondsman. If the
court imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding six years but not more than
twenty years, the accused shall be denied
bail, or his bail previously granted shall
be cancelled, upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 18
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
the following or other
circumstances:
[i] that the accused is a recidivist, quasi-
recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
[ii] that the accused is found to have
previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence or has violated the
conditions of his bail without valid
justification;
[iii] that the accused committed the offense
while on probation, parole, or under
conditional pardon;
[iv] that the circumstances of the accused
or his case indicate the probability of flight
if released on bail; or
[v] that there is undue risk that during the
pendency of the appeal, the accused may
commit another crime [Sec. 5, Rule 114].
i) However, whether bail is a matter of
right or of discretion, reasonable notice
of hearing is required to be given to the
prosecutor, or at least he must be asked
for his recommendation, because in fixing
the amount of bail, the judge is required
to take into account a number of factors
such as the applicant’s character and
reputation, forfeiture of other bonds, etc.
[Cortes v. Judge Catral, AM. No. RTJ-97-
1387, September 10, 1997], This was
reiterated in Taborite v. Sollesta, A.M.
No. MTJ-02-1388, August 12, 2003, that
granting bail in non-bailable offenses
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
MENDIOLA, MANILA
similar without a hearing is gross ignorance of
the law, and the judge was subjected to a
fine of P20,000.00.
c) When bail shall be denied. When the
accused is charged with a capital offense,
or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or higher and evidence of guilt is
strong, then bail shall be denied, as it is
neither a matter of right or of discretion
[Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA
155], Thus, in Trillanes IV v. Pimentel,
G.R. No. 179817, where Senator Antonio
Trillanes, charged with coup d’ etat,
sought to be allowed to attend senate
sessions and to convene his staff, resource
persons and guests and to attend to his
official functions as senator, the Supreme
Court dnied the petition.
The petitioner’s contention that he is not
a flight risk is irrelevant as it is only
material in ascertaining the amount of
bail and in cancelling a discretionary
grant of bail. In this case, where the
offense charged is a non-bailable offense,
what is controlling is the determination
by the trial court that the evidence of his
guilt is strong. It is impractical to draw a
line between convicted prisoners and pre-
trial detainees for the purpose of
maintaining jail security, and while pre-
trial detainees do not forfeit their
constitutional rights upon confinement,
the fact of their detention makes their
rights limited than those of the public.
The presumption of innocence does not
carry with it full enjoyment of civil and
political rights.
Page | 19
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

i) Where the accused is charged with a
crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and is convicted by the trial court and
sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is
neither a matter of right nor a matter of
discretion; an application for bail must be
denied [People v. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619].
Likewise, in People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA
402, the Supreme Court held that where a
person has been convicted by the trial
court and sentenced to the penalty of
imprisonment for 22 years, the penalty
imposed is classified as reclusion
perpetua, and while the case is on appeal,
bail shall be denied because the offense is
punishable by reclusion perpetua and the
evidence of guilt is strong. In Obosa v.
Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281, it was
held that the principle denying bail to an
accused charged with a capital offense
where evidence of guilt is strong, applies
with equal force to the appellant who,
though convicted of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, was nevertheless
originally charged with a capital offense.
Right to bail and right to travel abroad.
See Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, supra.;
Silverio v. Court of Appeals, supra;
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, supra..
Standards for fixing bail. In Sec. 6, Rule
114, Rules of Court, among the factors to
be considered by the judge in fixing bail
are the financial ability of the accused, the
nature and circumstances of the offense,
the penalty for the offense charged, the
character and reputation of the accused,
his age and health, the weight of the
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
evidence against him, the probability of
his appearing at the trial, the forfeiture of
other bonds by him, the fact that he was a
fugitive from justice when arrested, and
the pendency of other cases in which he is
under bond. See de la Camara v. Enage,
41 SCRA 1; Villasenor v. Abano, 21 SCRA
312. In Yap v. Court of Appeals,
supra.,the bail of P5.5- million
recommended by the Solicitor General for
the provisional liberty of the accused who
had already been convicted by the trial
court in an estafa case, was held to be
excessive, as bail is not intended to
assume the civil liability of the accused.
MANOTOC V. CA
G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986, Fernan,
J.
Facts: Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr.,
is one of the two principal stockholders of
Trans-Insular Management, Inc., where he
acts as president and the Manotoc
Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house.
Together with his co-stockholders, he
filed a petition with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the
appointment of a management committee
for the aforesaid companies, which
petition was granted.
Pending disposition of the SEC case, SEC
requested the then Commissioner of
Immigration not to clear petitioner for
departure and a memorandum to this
effect was issued. When a Torrens title
submitted to and accepted by Manotoc

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 20
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Securities, Inc. was suspected to be fake,
six of its clients filed six separate criminal
complaints against petitioner and the
vice-president of Manotoc Securities, Inc.
Corresponding criminal charges for estafa
were filed and in all cases, petitioner was
admitted to bail.
Petitioner filed before each of the trial
courts a motion entitled, "motion for
permission to leave the country," stating
as ground therefor his desire to go to the
United States, "relative to his business
transactions and opportunities." The
prosecution opposed said motion and
both trial judges denied the same.
Petitioner likewise wrote the Immigration
Commissioner requesting the withdrawal
of the latter's memorandum, but said
request was denied. Petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus
before the CA seeking to annul the orders
of the trial courts. CA denied the petition.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for
review on certiorari.
Petitioner filed a motion for leave to go
abroad pendente lite, but the Court
denied said motion. Petitioner contends
that having been admitted to bail as a
matter of right, neither the courts which
granted him bail nor the Securities and
Exchange Commission which has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent
him from exercising his constitutional
right to travel.
Issue: Does a person facing a criminal
indictment and provisionally released on
bail have an unrestricted right to travel?
Held: No. The object of bail is to relieve
the accused of imprisonment and the
state of the burden of keeping him,
pending the trial, and at the same time, to
put the accused as much under the power
of the court as if he were in custody of the
proper officer, and to secure the
appearance of the accused so as to answer
the call of the court and do what the law
may require of him. The condition
imposed upon petitioner to make himself
available at all times whenever the court
requires his presence operates as a valid
restriction on his right to travel. To allow
the accused from leaving the jurisdiction
of the Philippines would render nugatory
the courts' orders and processes and
inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts
from which they issued does not extend
beyond that of the Philippines they would
have no binding force outside of said
jurisdiction. Indeed, if the accused were
allowed to leave the Philippines without
sufficient reason, he may be placed
beyond the reach of the courts.
NACHURA:
Right to bail and extradition. In
Government of the U.S. v. Judge
Puruganan and Mark Jimenez, G.R. No.
148571, December 17, 2002, the
Supreme Court denied with finality Mark
Jimenez’s motion for reconsideration of

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 21
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the court’s earlier decision to declare null
and void the order of Judge Puruganan
granting bail to Mark Jimenez. The court
said that, as suggested by the use of the
word “conviction”, the constitutional
provision on bail applies only when a
person has been arrested and detained
for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It
does not apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not render
judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail
“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”.
It follows that the constitutional provision
on bail will not apply to a case of
extradition where the presumption of
innocence is not an issue. That the
offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be
extradited are bailable in the United
States is not an argument to grant him
one in the present case. To stress,
extradition proceedings are separate and
distinct from the trial for the offenses for
which he is charged. He should apply for
bail before the courts trying the criminal
cases against him, not before the
extradition court. Accordingly, it was held
that after a potential extraditee has been
arrested and placed under the custody of
the law, bail may be applied for and
granted as an exception, only upon a clear
and convincing showing that
(a) once granted bail, the applicant will
not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community, and (b) there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling
circumstances including, as a matter of
reciprocity, those cited by the highest
court in the requesting state when it
grants provisional liberty in extradition
cases therein.
a) This ruling in Puruganan was
modified in Government of HongKong v.
Hon. Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No.
153675, April 19, 2007, where the Court
said that it cannot ignore the modern
trend in public international law which
places a primacy on the worth of the
individual person and the sanctity of
human rights. While the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is not a
treaty, its principles are now recognized
as customarily binding upon the members
of the international community.
This Court, in Mejoff v. Director of
Prisons, in granting bail to a prospective
deportee, held that under the Constitution
the principles set forth in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights are part of
the law of the land. If bail can be granted
in deportation cases, considering that the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
applies to deportation cases, there is no
reason why it cannot be invoked in
extradition cases.
i) Consistent with the separate opinion of
Chief Justice Puno in Puruganan, a new
standard, “clear and convincing
evidence”, should be used in granting
bail in extradition cases. The standard is

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 22
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

lower than proof beyond reasonable 2. Whether the offense is extraditable.

doubt, but higher than preponderance of
evidence. The potential extradite must Q: How about in applying for bail in
prove by “clear and convincing evidence” deprtation proceedings and
that he is not a flight risk and will abide quarantine, what are the 2 factors to
with all the orders and processes of the be considered?
extradition court.
ANS – (1) Risk of flight and, (2) Under
compelling reasons and Humanitarian
GABBY RECIT: reasons.

Q: DISCUSS THE BAIL IN EXTRADITION

PROCEEDINGS.
ANS – Under Section 13 of Article III,
extradites are not entitled to bail because
the provision applies only to criminal
proceedings.
Q: What are the five (5) postulates in
extradition proceedings?
ANS -
1. Extradition is a major instrument
for the suppression of crime.
2. The requesting state will accord
due process to the accused.
3. Proceedings are sui generis.
4. Compliance shall be in good faith.
5. There is an underlying risk of flight.
- In the case of US vs. Puruganan,
extradition court is not called upon
to ascertain the guilt or innocence
of the person sought to be
extradited.
Q: What are the two (2) issues in
extradition court?
ANS –
1. Whether it was filed in accordance
with extradition treaty
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
Government of the U.S. vs. Judge
Puruganan [G.R. No. 148571,
September 24, 2002; December 17,
2002]
FIVE POSTULATES OF EXTRADITION.
The substantive issues raised in this case
require an interpretation or construction
of the treaty and the law on extradition. A
cardinal rule in the interpretation of a
treaty or a law is to ascertain and give
effect to its intent. Since PD 1069 is
intended as a guide for the
implementation of extradition treaties to
which the Philippines is a signatory,
understanding certain postulates of
extradition will aid us in properly
deciding the issues raised here.
1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for
the Suppression of Crime.
First, extradition treaties are entered into
for the purpose of suppressing crime by
facilitating the arrest and the custodial
transfer of a fugitive from one state to the
other. With the advent of easier and faster
means of international travel, the flight of

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 23
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

affluent criminals from one country to
another for the purpose of committing
crime and evading prosecution has
become more frequent. Accordingly,
governments are adjusting their methods
of dealing with criminals and crimes that
transcend international boundaries.
Today, “a majority of nations in the world
community have come to look upon
extradition as the major effective
instrument of international co-operation
in the suppression of crime.” It is the only
regular system that has been devised to
return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a
court competent to try them in
accordance with municipal and
international law.
“An important practical effect x x x of the
recognition of the principle that criminals
should be restored to a jurisdiction
competent to try and punish them is that
the number of criminals seeking refuge
abroad will be reduced. For to the extent
that efficient means of detection and the
threat of punishment play a significant
role in the deterrence of crime within the
territorial limits of a State, so the
existence of effective extradition
arrangements and the consequent
certainty of return to the locus delicti
commissi play a corresponding role in the
deterrence of flight abroad in order to
escape the consequence of crime. x x x.
From an absence of extradition
arrangements flight abroad by the
ingenious criminal receives direct
encouragement and thus indirectly does
the commission of crime itself.”
In Secretary v. Lantion we explained:
“The Philippines also has a national
interest to help in suppressing crimes and
one way to do it is to facilitate the
extradition of persons covered by treaties
duly entered [into] by our government.
More and more, crimes are becoming the
concern of one world. Laws involving
crimes and crime prevention are
undergoing universalization. One
manifest purpose of this trend towards
globalization is to deny easy refuge to a
criminal whose activities threaten the
peace and progress of civilized countries.
It is to the great interest of the Philippines
to be part of this irreversible movement
in light of its vulnerability to crimes,
especially transnational crimes.”
Indeed, in this era of globalization, easier
and faster international travel, and an
expanding ring of international crimes
and criminals, we cannot afford to be an
isolationist state. We need to cooperate
with other states in order to improve our
chances of suppressing crime in our own
country.
2. The Requesting State Will Accord
Due Process to the Accused
Second, an extradition treaty presupposes
that both parties thereto have examined,
and that both accept and trust, each
other’s legal system and judicial process.
More pointedly, our duly authorized

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 24
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

representative’s signature on an “There are other differences between an

extradition treaty signifies our confidence
in the capacity and the willingness of the
other state to protect the basic rights of
the person sought to be extradited. That
signature signifies our full faith that the
accused will be given, upon extradition to
the requesting state, all relevant and basic
rights in the criminal proceedings that
will take place therein; otherwise, the
treaty would not have been signed, or
would have been directly attacked for its
unconstitutionality.
3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis
Third, as pointed out in Secretary of
Justice v. Lantion, extradition proceedings
are not criminal in nature. In criminal
proceedings, the constitutional rights of
the accused are at fore; in extradition
which is sui generis -- in a class by itself –
they are not.
“An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis.
It is not a criminal proceeding which will
call into operation all the rights of an
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. To begin with, the process of
extradition does not involve the
determination of the guilt or innocence of
an accused.
His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in
the court of the state where he will be
extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional
rights that are only relevant to determine
the guilt or innocence of an accused
cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x.
extradition proceeding and a criminal
proceeding. An extradition proceeding is
summary in nature while criminal
proceedings involve a full-blown trial. In
contradistinction to a criminal proceeding,
the rules of evidence in an extradition
proceeding allow admission of evidence
under less stringent standards. In terms
of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied,
a criminal case requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt for conviction while a
fugitive may be ordered extradited ‘upon
showing of the existence of a prima facie
case.’ Finally, unlike in a criminal case
where judgment becomes executory upon
being rendered final, in an extradition
proceeding, our courts may adjudge an
individual extraditable but the President
has the final discretion to extradite him.
The United States adheres to a similar
practice whereby the Secretary of State
exercises wide discretion in balancing the
equities of the case and the demands of
the nation’s foreign relations before
making the ultimate decision to extradite.”
Given the foregoing, it is evident that the
extradition court is not called upon to
ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the
person sought to be extradited. Such
determination during the extradition
proceedings will only result in needless
duplication and delay. Extradition is
merely a measure of international judicial
assistance through which a person
charged with or convicted of a crime is
restored to a jurisdiction with the best
claim to try that person. It is not part of

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 25
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the function of the assisting authorities to
enter into questions that are the
prerogative of that jurisdiction. The
ultimate purpose of extradition
proceedings in court is only to determine
whether the extradition request complies
with the Extradition Treaty, and whether
the person sought is extraditable.
4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.
Fourth, our executive branch of
government voluntarily entered into the
Extradition Treaty, and our legislative
branch ratified it. Hence, the Treaty
carries the presumption that its
implementation will serve the national
interest.
Fulfilling our obligations under the
Extradition Treaty promotes comity with
the requesting state. On the other hand,
failure to fulfill our obligations
thereunder paints a bad image of our
country before the world community.
Such failure would discourage other
states from entering into treaties with us,
particularly an extradition treaty that
hinges on reciprocity.
Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt
servanda to comply in good faith with our
obligations under the Treaty. This
principle requires that we deliver the
accused to the requesting country if the
conditions precedent to extradition, as set
forth in the Treaty, are satisfied. In other
words, “[t]he demanding government,
when it has done all that the treaty and
the law require it to do, is entitled to the
delivery of the accused on the issue of the
proper warrant, and the other
government is under obligation to make
the surrender.” Accordingly, the
Philippines must be ready and in a
position to deliver the accused, should it
be found proper.
5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
Fifth, persons to be extradited are
presumed to be flight risks. This prima
facie presumption finds reinforcement in
the experience of the executive branch:
nothing short of confinement can ensure
that the accused will not flee the
jurisdiction of the requested state in
order to thwart their extradition to the
requesting state.
The present extradition case further
validates the premise that persons sought
to be extradited have a propensity to flee.
Indeed, extradition hearings would not
even begin, if only the accused were
willing to submit to trial in the requesting
country. Prior acts of herein respondent –
(1) leaving the requesting state right
before the conclusion of his indictment
proceedings there; and
(2) remaining in the requested state
despite learning that the requesting state
is seeking his return and that the crimes
he is charged with are bailable --
eloquently speak of his aversion to the
processes in the requesting state, as well
as his predisposition to avoid them at all
cost.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 26
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

These circumstances point to an ever-
present, underlying high risk of flight. He
has demonstrated that he has the capacity
and the will to flee. Having fled once, what
is there to stop him, given sufficient
opportunity, from fleeing a second time?
THE RIGHT TO BAIL DOES NOT APPLY
IN EXTRADITION CASES. We agree with
petitioner. As suggested by the use of the
word “conviction,” the constitutional
provision on bail quoted above, as well as
Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court,
applies only when a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of
Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply
to extradition proceedings, because
extradition courts do not render
judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail
“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.” It follows that
the constitutional provision on bail will
not apply to a case like extradition, where
the presumption of innocence is not at
issue.
The provision in the Constitution stating
that the “right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended” does
not detract from the rule that the
constitutional right to bail is available
only in criminal proceedings. It must be
noted that the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus finds
application “only to persons judicially
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent
in or directly connected with invasion.”
Hence, the second sentence in the
constitutional provision on bail merely
emphasizes the right to bail in criminal
proceedings for the aforementioned
offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that
the right is available even in extradition
proceedings that are not criminal in
nature.
That the offenses for which Jimenez is
sought to be extradited are bailable in the
United States is not an argument to grant
him one in the present case. To stress,
extradition proceedings are separate and
distinct from the trial for the offenses for
which he is charged. He should apply for
bail before the courts trying the criminal
cases against him, not before the
extradition court.
EXCEPTIONS IN THE NON-
APPLICABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL
ON EXTRADITION CASES. The rule, we
repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right
in extradition cases. However, the
judiciary has the constitutional duty to
curb grave abuse of discretion and
tyranny, as well as the power to
promulgate rules to protect and enforce
constitutional rights. Furthermore, we
believe that the right to due process is
broad enough to include the grant of basic
fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right
to due process extends to the “life, liberty

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 27
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

or property” of every person. It is that the vital international and bilateral

“dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every
situation calling for its application.”
Accordingly and to best serve the ends of
justice, we believe and so hold that, after a
potential extraditee has been arrested or
placed under the custody of the law, bail
may be applied for and granted as an
exception, only upon a clear and
convincing showing
(1) that, once granted bail, the applicant
will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community; and
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian
and compelling circumstances including,
as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by
the highest court in the requesting state
when it grants provisional liberty in
extradition cases therein.
Since this exception has no express or
specific statutory basis, and since it is
derived essentially from general
principles of justice and fairness, the
applicant bears the burden of proving the
above two-tiered requirement with
clarity, precision and emphatic
forcefulness. The Court realizes that
extradition is basically an executive, not a
judicial, responsibility arising from the
presidential power to conduct foreign
relations. In its barest concept, it partakes
of the nature of police assistance amongst
states, which is not normally a judicial
prerogative. Hence, any intrusion by the
courts into the exercise of this power
should be characterized by caution, so
interests of our country will not be
unreasonably impeded or compromised.
In short, while this Court is ever
protective of “the sporting idea of fair
play,” it also recognizes the limits of its
own prerogatives and the need to fulfill
international obligations.
GOVT OF USA VS PURUGANAN G.R. No.
148571. September 24, 2002
Facts:This Petition is really a sequel to GR
No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v.
Ralph C. Lantion where the court held
that Jimenez was bereft of the right to
notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage of the extradition process.
Finding no more legal obstacle, the
Government of the United States of
America, represented by the Philippine
DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May 2001,
the appropriate Petition for Extradition
which was docketed as Extradition Case
01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia,
that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest
warrant issued by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on 15 April 1999.
Before the RTC could act on the Petition,
Jimenez filed before it an “Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,” which
prayed that Jimenez’s application for an
arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its 23
May 2001 Order, the RTC granted the
Motion of Jimenez and set the case for

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 28
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

hearing on 5 June 2001. In that hearing,
Jimenez manifested its reservations on
the procedure adopted by the trial court
allowing the accused in an extradition
case to be heard prior to the issuance of a
warrant of arrest.
After the hearing, the court a quo
required the parties to submit their
respective memoranda. In his
Memorandum, Jimenez sought an
alternative prayer: that in case a warrant
should issue, he be allowed to post bail in
the amount of P100,000.
The alternative prayer of Jimenez was
also set for hearing on 15 June 2001.
Thereafter, the court below issued its 3
July 2001 Order, directing the issuance of
warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for
his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash.
After he had surrendered his passport
and posted the required cash bond,
Jimenez was granted provisional liberty
via the challenged Order dated 4 July
2001. Hence, this petition.
Issues: 1.Whether Jimenez is entitled to
notice and hearing before a warrant for
his arrest can be issued
2. Whether he is entitled to bail and
to provisional liberty while the
extradition proceedings are
pending
Held:
1. No.
To determine probable cause for the
issuance of arrest warrants, the
Constitution itself requires only the
examination — under oath or affirmation
— of complainants and the witnesses they
may produce. There is no requirement to
notify and hear the accused before the
issuance of warrants of arrest.
At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of
evidence on record, judges merely further
examine complainants and their witnesses.
In the present case, validating the act of
respondent judge and instituting the
practice of hearing the accused and his
witnesses at this early stage would be
discordant with the rationale for the
entire system. If the accused were
allowed to be heard and necessarily to
present evidence during the prima
facie determination for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, what would stop him
from presenting his entire plethora of
defenses at this stage — if he so desires
— in his effort to negate a prima facie
finding? Such a procedure could convert
the determination of a prima facie case
into a full-blown trial of the entire
proceedings and possibly make trial of
the main case superfluous. This scenario
is also anathema to the summary nature
of extraditions.
***Upon receipt of a petition for
extradition and its supporting documents,
the judge must study them and make, as
soon as possible, a prima facie
finding whether (a) they are sufficient in
form and substance, (b) they show

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 29
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

compliance with the Extradition Treaty
and Law, and (c) the person sought is
extraditable. At his discretion, the judge
may require the submission of further
documentation or may personally
examine the affiants and witnesses of the
petitioner. If, in spite of this study and
examination, no prima facie finding is
possible, the petition may be dismissed at
the discretion of the judge.
On the other hand, if the presence of a
prima facie case is determined, then the
magistrate must immediately issue a
warrant for the arrest of the extraditee,
who is at the same time summoned to
answer the petition and to appear at
scheduled summary hearings. Prior to
the issuance of the warrant, the judge
must not inform or notify the potential
extraditee of the pendency of the petition,
lest the latter be given the opportunity to
escape and frustrate the proceedings. In
our opinion, the foregoing procedure will
“best serve the ends of justice” in
extradition cases.***
2. No.
not apply to a case like extradition, where
the presumption of innocence is not at
issue.
Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign
case Parettiin arguing that,
constitutionally,
“[n]o one shall be deprived of x x x
liberty x x x without due process of law.”
Contrary to his contention, his detention
prior to the conclusion of the extradition
proceedings does not amount to a
violation of his right to due process. We
iterate the familiar doctrine that the
essence of due process is the opportunity
to be heard but, at the same time, point
out that the doctrine does not always call
for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where
the circumstances — such as those
present in an extradition case — call for
it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is
enough. In the present case, respondent
will be given full opportunity to be heard
subsequently, when the extradition court
hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence,
there is no violation of his right to due
process and fundamental fairness.

Extradition cases are different from

ordinary criminal proceedings. The
constitutional right to bail “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.”It follows that
the constitutional provision on bail will
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
VS PURUGANAN
Lessons: Extradition Process, Bail on
Extradition, Right of Due Process and
Fundamental Fairness in Extradition
Laws: Bill of Rights, PD 1069, US-Phil

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 30
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
Extradition
FACTS:
Petition is a sequel to the case “Sec. of
Justice v. Hon. Lantion”. The Secretary
was ordered to furnish Mr. Jimenez copies
of the extradition request and its
supporting papers and to grant the latter
a reasonable period within which to file a
comment and supporting evidence. But,
on motion for reconsideration by the Sec.
of Justice, it reversed its decision but held
that the Mr. Jimenez was bereft of the
right to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the extradition
process. On May 18, 2001, the
Government of the USA, represented by
the Philippine Department of Justice, filed
with the RTC, the Petition for Extradition
praying for the issuance of an order for
his “immediate arrest” pursuant to Sec. 6
of PD 1069 in order to prevent the flight
of Jimenez. Before the RTC could act on
the petition, Mr. Jimenez filed before it an
“Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion”
praying for his application for an arrest
warrant be set for hearing. After the
hearing, as required by the court, Mr.
Jimenez submitted his
Memorandum. Therein seeking an
alternative prayer that in case a warrant
should issue, he be allowed to post bail in
the amount of P100,000. The court
ordered the issuance of a warrant for his
arrest and fixing bail for his temporary
liberty at P1M in cash. After he had
surrendered his passport and posted the
required cash bond, Jimenez was granted
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Treaty provisional liberty.
Government of the USA filed a petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court to set aside the order for the
issuance of a warrant for his arrest and
fixing bail for his temporary liberty at
P1M in cash which the court deems best
to take cognizance as there is still no local
jurisprudence to guide lower court.
ISSUES:
i. Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
adopting a procedure of first hearing a
potential extraditee before issuing an
arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No.
1069
ii. Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
granting the prayer for bail
iii. Whether or NOT there is a violation
of due process
HELD: Petition is GRANTED. Bail bond
posted is CANCELLED. Regional Trial
Court of
Manila is directed to conduct the
extradition proceedings before it.
i. YES.
Page | 31
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

By using the phrase “if it appears,” the law
further conveys that accuracy is not as
important as speed at such early
stage. From the knowledge and the
material then available to it, the court is
expected merely to get a good first
impression or a prima facie finding
sufficient to make a speedy initial
determination as regards the arrest and
detention of the accused. The prima facie
existence of probable cause for hearing
the petition and, a priori, for issuing an
arrest warrant was already evident from
the Petition itself and its supporting
documents. Hence, after having already
determined therefrom that a prima facie
finding did exist, respondent judge
gravely abused his discretion when he set
the matter for hearing upon motion of
Jimenez. The silence of the Law and the
Treaty leans to the more reasonable
interpretation that there is no intention to
punctuate with a hearing every little step
in the entire proceedings. It also bears
emphasizing at this point that extradition
proceedings are summary in
nature. Sending to persons sought to be
extradited a notice of the request for their
arrest and setting it for hearing at some
future date would give them ample
opportunity to prepare and execute an
escape which neither the Treaty nor the
Law could have intended.
Even Section 2 of Article III of our
Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez,
does not require a notice or a hearing
before the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. To determine probable cause for
the issuance of arrest warrants, the
Constitution itself requires only the
examination under oath or affirmation of
complainants and the witnesses they may
produce.
The Proper Procedure to “Best Serve The
Ends Of Justice” In Extradition Cases
Upon receipt of a petition for
extradition and its supporting documents,
the judge must study them and make, as
soon as possible, a prima facie finding
whether
a) they are sufficient in form and
substance
b) they show compliance with the
Extradition Treaty and Law
c) the person sought is extraditable
At his discretion, the judge may require
the submission of further documentation
or may personally examine the affiants
and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite
of this study and examination, no prima
facie finding is possible, the petition may
be dismissed at the discretion of the
judge. On the other hand, if the presence
of a prima facie case is determined, then
the magistrate must immediately issue a
warrant for the arrest of the extraditee,
who is at the same time summoned to
answer the petition and to appear at
scheduled summary hearings. Prior to
the issuance of the warrant, the judge
must not inform or notify the potential
extraditee of the pendency of the petition,
lest the latter be given the opportunity to
escape and frustrate the proceedings.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 32
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

ii. Yes.
Exceptions to the “No Bail” Rule
The constitutional provision on bail on Bail is not a matter of right in
Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, extradition cases. It is subject to judicial
as well discretion in the context of the peculiar
as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of facts of each case. Bail may be applied for
Court, applies only when a person has and granted as an exception, only upon a
been arrested and detained for violation clear and convincing showing
of Philippine criminal laws. It does not
apply to extradition proceedings, because
extradition courts do not render 1) that, once granted bail, the applicant
judgments of conviction or will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
acquittal. Moreover, the constitutional community; and
right to bail “flows from the presumption 2) that there exist special, humanitarian
of innocence in favor of every accused and compelling circumstances including,
who should not be subjected to the loss of as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by
freedom as thereafter he would be the highest court in the requesting state
entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be when it grants provisional liberty in
proved beyond reasonable doubt. In extradition cases therein
extradition, the presumption of innocence
is not at issue. The provision in the Since this exception has no express or
Constitution stating that the “right to bail specific statutory basis, and since it is
shall not be impaired even when the derived essentially from general
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is principles of justice and fairness, the
suspended” finds application “only to applicant bears the burden of proving the
persons judicially charged for rebellion or above two-tiered requirement with
offenses inherent in or directly connected clarity, precision and emphatic
with invasion.” forcefulness.

That the offenses for which Jimenez is It must be noted that even before
sought to be extradited are bailable in the private respondent ran for and won a
United States is not an argument to grant congressional seat in Manila, it was
him one in the present case. Extradition already of public knowledge that the
proceedings are separate and distinct United States was requesting his
from the trial for the offenses for which extradition. Therefore, his constituents
he is charged. He should apply for bail were or should have been prepared for
before the courts trying the criminal cases the consequences of the extradition
against him, not before the extradition case. Thus, the court ruled against his
court. claim that his election to public office is
by itself a compelling reason to grant him
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 33
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

bail. compatible with the summary nature of

extradition.
Giving premium to delay by considering
it as a special circumstance for the grant It is also worth noting that before the
of bail would be tantamount to giving him US government requested the extradition
the power to grant bail to himself. It of respondent, proceedings had already
would also encourage him to stretch out been conducted in that country. He
and unreasonably delay the extradition already had that opportunity in the
proceedings even more. Extradition requesting state; yet, instead of taking it,
proceedings should be conducted with all he ran away.
deliberate speed to determine compliance
with the Extradition Treaty and Law; and, Other Doctrines:
while safeguarding basic individual rights,
to avoid the legalistic contortions, delays Five Postulates of Extradition
and technicalities that may negate that 1) Extradition Is a Major Instrument for
purpose. the Suppression of Crime

That he has not yet fled from the
Philippines cannot be taken to mean that
he will stand his ground and still be
within reach of our government if and
when it matters; that is, upon the
resolution of the Petition for Extradition.
iii.
In this era of globalization, easier and
faster international travel, and an
expanding ring of
international crimes and criminals, we
cannot afford to be an isolationist
state. We need to cooperate with other
states in order to improve our chances of
NO. suppressing crime in our own country.

Potential extraditees are entitled to the 2) The Requesting State Will Accord Due
rights to due process and to fundamental Process to the Accused
fairness. The doctrine of right to due
process and fundamental fairness does By entering into an extradition treaty, the
not always call for a prior opportunity to Philippines is deemed to have reposed its
be heard. A subsequent opportunity to trust
be heard is enough. He will be given full in the reliability or soundness of the legal
opportunity to be heard subsequently, and judicial system of its treaty partner,
when the extradition court hears the as well as in the ability and the
Petition for Extradition. Indeed, available willingness of the latter to grant basic
during the hearings on the petition and rights to the accused in the pending
the answer is the full chance to be heard criminal case therein.
and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 34
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

3) The Proceedings Are Sui Generis 4) Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.

An extradition proceeding is sui generis: We are bound by pacta sunt servanda to

a) It is not a criminal proceeding which
will call into operation all the rights of an
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. It does not involve the
determination of the guilt or innocence of
an accused. His guilt or innocence will be
adjudged in the court of the state where
he will be extradited.
b) An extradition proceeding is
summary in nature while criminal
proceedings involve a full-blown trial.
c) In terms of the quantum of evidence
to be satisfied, a criminal case requires
proof “beyond reasonable doubt” for
conviction while a fugitive may be
ordered extradited “upon showing of the
existence of a prima facie case”
d) Unlike in a criminal case where
judgment becomes executory upon being
rendered final, in an extradition
proceeding, our courts may adjudge an
individual extraditable but the President
has the final discretion to extradite him.
Extradition is merely a measure of
international judicial assistance through
which a person charged with or convicted
of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction
with the best claim to try that
person. The ultimate purpose of
extradition proceedings in court is only to
determine whether the extradition
request complies with the Extradition
Treaty, and whether the person sought is
extraditable.
comply in good faith with our obligations
under the Treaty. Accordingly, the
Philippines must be ready and in a
position to deliver the
accused, should it be found proper
5) There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
Indeed, extradition hearings would not
even begin, if only the accused were
willing to submit to trial in the requesting
country. Prior acts of herein respondent:
a) leaving the requesting state right
before the conclusion of his indictment
proceedings there; and
b) remaining in the requested state
despite learning that the requesting state
is seeking his return and that the crimes
he is charged with are bailable
Extradition is Essentially Executive
Extradition is essentially an executive, not
a judicial, responsibility arising out of the
presidential power to conduct foreign
relations and to implement treaties. Thus,
the Executive Department of government
has broad discretion in its duty and
power of implementation.
- If the case is not a criminal proceeding,
the application for bail is based on due
process and a clear and convincing
evidence is needed (case of judge olalia)

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 35
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Government of Hong Kong vs. Hon. Declaration are now recognized as

Olalia [G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007]
EXCEPTIONS IN THE GENERAL RULE.
The modern trend in public international
law is the primacy placed on the worth of
the individual person and the sanctity of
human rights. Slowly, the recognition that
the individual person may properly be a
subject of international law is now taking
root. The vulnerable doctrine that the
subjects of international law are limited
only to states was dramatically eroded
towards the second half of the past
century. For one, the Nuremberg and
Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in
the unprecedented spectacle of individual
defendants for acts characterized as
violations of the laws of war, crimes
against peace, and crimes against
humanity.
Recently, under the Nuremberg principle,
Serbian leaders have been persecuted for
war crimes and crimes against humanity
committed in the former Yugoslavia.
These significant events show that the
individual person is now a valid subject of
international law. On a more positive note,
also after World War II, both international
organizations and states gave recognition
and importance to human rights. Thus, on
December 10, 1948, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in which the
right to life, liberty and all the other
fundamental rights of every person were
proclaimed. While not a treaty, the
principles contained in the said
customarily binding upon the members of
the international community.
Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, this
Court, in granting bail to a prospective
deportee, held that under the Constitution,
the principles set forth in that Declaration
are part of the law of the land. In 1966,
the UN General Assembly also adopted
the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights which the Philippines
signed and ratified. Fundamental among
the rights enshrined therein are the rights
of every person to life, liberty, and due
process.
The Philippines, along with the other
members of the family of nations,
committed to uphold the fundamental
human rights as well as value the worth
and dignity of every person. This
commitment is enshrined in Section II,
Article II of our Constitution which
provides: “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

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 36
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

fundamental right to liberty. These
remedies include the right to be admitted
to bail. While this Court in Purganan
limited the
exercise of the right to bail to criminal
proceedings, however, in light of the
various international treaties giving
recognition and protection to human
rights, particularly the right to life and
liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s
ruling in Purganan is in order.
granted bail pending his appeal. After
noting that the prospective deportee had
committed no crime, the Court opined
that “To refuse him bail is to treat him as
a person who has committed the most
serious crime known to law;” and that
while deportation is not a criminal
proceeding, some of the machinery used
“is the machinery of criminal law.” Thus,
the provisions relating to bail was applied
to deportation proceedings.

First, we note that the exercise of the
State’s power to deprive an individual of
his liberty is not necessarily limited to
criminal proceedings. Respondents in
administrative proceedings, such as
deportation and quarantine, have
likewise been detained.
Second, to limit bail to criminal
proceedings would be to close our eyes to
our jurisprudential history. Philippine
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise
of the right to bail to criminal proceedings
only. This Court has admitted to bail
persons who are not involved in criminal
proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed
in this jurisdiction to persons in detention
during the pendency of administrative
proceedings, taking into cognizance the
obligation of the Philippines under
international conventions to uphold
human rights.
The 1909 case of US v. Go-Sioco is
illustrative. In this case, a Chinese facing
deportation for failure to secure the
necessary certificate of registration was
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.
Clearly, the right of a prospective
extraditee to apply for bail in this
jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of
the various treaty obligations of the
Philippines concerning respect for the
promotion and protection of human

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 37
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

rights. Under these treaties, the
presumption lies in favor of human
liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see
to it that the right to liberty of every
individual is not impaired. Section 2(a) of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The
Philippine Extradition Law) defines
“extradition” as “the removal of an
accused from the Philippines with the
object of placing him at the disposal of
foreign authorities to enable the
requesting state or government to hold
him in connection with any criminal
investigation directed against him or the
execution of a penalty imposed on him
under the penal or criminal law of the
requesting state or government.”
Extradition has thus been characterized
as the right of a foreign power, created by
treaty, to demand the surrender of one
accused or convicted of a crime within its
territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative
duty of the other state to surrender him
to the demanding state. It is not a criminal
proceeding. Even if the potential
extraditee is a criminal, an extradition
proceeding is not by its nature criminal,
for it is not punishment for a crime, even
though such punishment may follow
extradition. It is sui generis, tracing its
existence wholly to treaty obligations
between different nations. It is not a trial
to determine the guilt or innocence of the
potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown
civil action, but one that is merely
administrative in character. Its object is to
prevent the escape of a person accused or
convicted of a crime and to secure his
return to the state from which he fled, for
the purpose of trial or punishment.
But while extradition is not a criminal
proceeding, it is characterized by the
following:
(a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on
the part of the potential extraditee and
(b) the means employed to attain the
purpose of extradition is also “the
machinery of criminal law.” This is shown
by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The
Philippine Extradition Law) which
mandates the “immediate arrest and
temporary detention of the accused” if
such “will best serve the interest of
justice.”
We further note that Section 20 allows the
requesting state “in case of urgency” to
ask for the “provisional arrest of the
accused, pending receipt of the request
for extradition;” and that release from
provisional arrest “shall not prejudice re-
arrest and extradition of the accused if a
request for extradition is received
subsequently.”
Obviously, an extradition proceeding,
while ostensibly administrative, bears all
earmarks of a criminal process. A
potential extraditee may be subjected to
arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty,
and forced to transfer to the demanding
state following the proceedings.
“Temporary detention” may be a
necessary step in the process of

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 38
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

extradition, but the length of time of the
detention should be reasonable.
Records show that private respondent
was arrested on September 23, 1999, and
remained incarcerated until December 20,
2001, when the trial court ordered his
admission to bail. In other words, he had
been detained for over two (2) years
without having been convicted of any
crime. By any standard, such an extended
period of detention is a serious
deprivation of his fundamental right to
liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged
deprivation of liberty which prompted the
extradition court to grant him bail.
While our extradition law does not
provide for the grant of bail to an
extraditee, however, there is no provision
prohibiting him or her from filing a
motion for bail, a right to due process
under the Constitution. The applicable
standard of due process, however, should
not be the same as that in criminal
proceedings. In the latter, the standard of
due process is premised on the
presumption of innocence of the accused.
As Purganan correctly points out, it is
from this major premise that the ancillary
presumption in favor of admitting to bail
arises. Bearing in mind the purpose of
extradition proceedings, the premise
behind the issuance of the arrest warrant
and the “temporary detention” is the
possibility of flight of the potential
extraditee. This is based on the
assumption that such extraditee is a
fugitive from justice.14[15] Given the
foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus
bears the onus probandi of showing that
he or she is not a flight risk and should be
granted bail.
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt
servanda demands that the Philippines
honor its obligations under the
Extradition Treaty it entered into with the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Failure to comply with these obligations
is a setback in our foreign relations and
defeats the purpose of extradition.
However, it does not necessarily mean
that in keeping with its treaty obligations,
the Philippines should diminish a
potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty,
and due process.
More so, where these rights are
guaranteed, not only by our Constitution,
but also by international conventions, to
which the Philippines is a party. We
should not, therefore, deprive an
extraditee of his right to apply for bail,
provided that a certain standard for the
grant is satisfactorily met. An extradition
proceeding being sui generis, the
standard of proof required in granting or
denying bail can neither be the proof
beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
cases nor the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
While administrative in character, the
standard of substantial evidence used in
administrative cases cannot likewise
apply given the object of extradition law
which is to prevent the prospective

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 39
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In the provisional arrest of respondent

his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Muñoz; the DOJ forward the request to
Associate Justice, now Chief Justice the NBI then to RTC. On the same day, NBI
Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new agents arrested him.
standard which he termed “clear and
convincing evidence” should be used in Respondent filed with the CA a petition
granting bail in extradition cases. for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
According to him, this standard should be with application for preliminary
lower than proof beyond reasonable mandatory injunction and writ of habeas
doubt but higher than preponderance of corpus questioning the validity of the
evidence. The potential extraditee must order of arrest.
prove by “clear and convincing evidence”
that he is not a flight risk and will abide The CA declared the arrest void. Hence
with all the orders and processes of the this petition by the Hongkong
extradition court. Department of Justice thru DOJ.

Bail, Section 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure - is the surety for
the release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to
guarantee his appearance before any
court as required under the conditions
hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in
the form of corporate surety, property
bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
GOV’T OF HONGKONG SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION VS HON.
OLALIA
Extradition:
FACTS:
Respondent Muñoz was charged of 3
counts of offences of “accepting an
advantage as agent”, and 7 counts of
conspiracy to defraud, punishable by the
common law of Hongkong. The Hongkong
Depoartment of Justice requested DOJ for
DOJ filed a petition for certiorari in this
Court and sustained the validity of the
arrest.
Hongkong Administrative Region then
filed in the RTC petition for extradition
and arrest of respondent. Meanwhile,
respondent filed a petition for bail, which
was opposed by the petitioner, initially
the RTC denied the petition holding that
there is no Philippine Law granting bail in
extradition cases and that private
responded is a “flight risk”.
Motion for reconsideration was filed by
the respondent, which was granted.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not right to bail can be avail in
extradition cases.
HELD:

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 40
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

In Purganan case, the right to bail was not

included in the extradition cases, since it
is available only in criminal proceedings.
However the Supreme Court, recognised
the following trends in International Law.
 The growing importance of the
individual person in publican
international law who, in the 20th
century attained global recognition.
 The higher value now being given in
human rights in international sphere
 The corresponding duty of countries
to observe these human rights in
fulfilling their treaty obligations
 The of duty of this court to balance the
rights of the individual under our
fundamental law, on one hand, and the
law on extradition on the other.
Examination of this Court in the doctrines
provided for in the US Vs Purganan
provide the following:
1. The exercise of the State’s police power
to deprive a person of his liberty is not
limited to criminal proceedings.
2. To limit the right to bail in the criminal
proceeding would be to close our eyes to
jurisprudential history. Philippines has
not limited the exercise of the right to bail
to criminal proceedings only. This Court
has admitted to bail persons who are not
involved in criminal proceedings. In fact,
bail has been involved in this jurisdiction
to persons in detention during the
tendency of administrative proceedings,
taking into cognisance the obligation of
the Philippines under international
conventions to uphold human rights.

The modern trend in the public EXTRADITION, is defined as the removal

international law is the primacy placed
on the sanctity of human rights.
Enshrined the Constitution “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
proceeding before the a court, to enable
it to decide without delay on the legality
of the detention and order their release
if justified.
of an accused from the Philippines with
the object of placing him at the disposal of
foreign authorities to enable the
requesting state or government to hold
him in connection with criminal
investigation directed against him or
execution of a penalty imposed on him
under the penal and criminal law of the
requesting state or government. Thus
characterized as the right of the a foreign
power, created by treaty to demand the
surrender of one accused or convicted of
a crimes within its territorial jurisdiction,
and the correlative obligation of the other
state to surrender him to the demanding
state.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 41
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may

The extradited may be subject to be given in the form of corporate surety,
detention as may be necessary step in the property bond, cash deposit, or
process of extradition, but the length of recognizance.
time in the detention should be
reasonable. Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail;
requirements. – All kinds of bail are
In the case at bar, the record show that subject to the following conditions:
the respondent, Muñoz has been detained
for 2 years without being convicted in (a) The undertaking shall
Hongkong. be effective upon approval,
and unless cancelled, shall
The Philippines has the obligation of remain in force at all stages
ensuring the individual his right to liberty of the case until
and due process and should not therefor promulgation of the
deprive the extraditee of his right to bail judgment of the Regional
PROVIDED that certain standards for the Trial Court, irrespective of
grant is satisfactorily met. In other words whether the case was
there should be “CLEAR AND originally filed in or
CONVINCING EVIDENCE”. appealed to it;

However in the case at bar, the (b) The accused shall

respondent was not able to show and appear before the proper
clear and convincing evidence that he be court whenever required by
entitled to bail. Thus the case is remanded the court of these Rules;
in the court for the determination and
otherwise, should order the cancellation (c) The failure of the
of his bond and his immediate detention. accused to appear at the
trial without justification
and despite due notice shall
be deemed a waiver of his
right to be present thereat.
RULE 114 - BAIL In such case, the trial may
proceed in absentia; and

Section 1. Bail defined. – Bail is the (d) The bondsman shall

security given for the release of a person surrender the accused to
in custody of the law, furnished by him or the court for execution of
a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance the final judgment.
before any court as required under the

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 42
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

The original papers shall state the full However, if the decision of the trial court
name and address of the accused, the conviction the accused changed the
amount of the undertaking and the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
conditions required by this section. bailable, the application for bail can only
Photographs (passport size) taken within be filed with and resolved by the
the last six (6) months showing the face, appellate court.
left and right profiles of the accused must
be attached to the bail. Should the court grant the application,
the accused may be allowed to continue
Sec. 3. No release or transfer except on on provisional liberty during the
court order or bail. – No person under pendency of the appeal under the same
detention by legal process shall be bail subject to the consent of the
released or transferred except upon order bondsman.
of the court or when he is admitted to bail.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court
Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years,
exception. – All persons in custody shall the accused shall be denied bail, or his
be admitted to bail as a matter of right, bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by
with sufficient sureties, or released on the prosecution, with notice to the accuse,
recognizance as prescribed by law or this of the following or other similar
Rule (a) before or after conviction by the circumstances:
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or (a) That he is a recidivist,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) quasi-recidivist, or habitual
before conviction by the Regional Trial delinquent, or has
court of an offense not punishable by committed the crime
death, reclusion perpetua, or life aggravated by the
imprisonment. circumstance of reiteration;

Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. – (b) That he has previously

Upon conviction by the Regional Trial escaped from legal
Court of an offense not punishable by confinement, evaded
death, reclusion perpetua, or life sentence, or violated the
imprisonment, admission to bail is conditions of his bail
discretionary. The application for bail without valid justification;
may be filed and acted upon by the trial
court despite the filing of a notice of (c) That he committed the
appeal, provided it has not transmitted offense while under
the original record to the appellate court.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 43
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

probation, parole, or is in custody for the commission of an

conditional pardon; offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, the
(d) That the circumstances prosecution has the burden of showing
of his case indicate the that evidence of guilt is strong. The
probability of flight if evidence presented during the bail
released on bail; or hearing shall be considered automatically
reproduced at the trial but, upon motion
(e) That there is undue risk of either party, the court may recall any
that he may commit witness for additional examination unless
another crime during the the latter is dead, outside the Philippines,
pendency of the appeal. or otherwise unable to testify.

The appellate court may, motu proprio Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. –
or on motion of any party, review the The judge who issued the warrant or
resolution of the Regional Trial Court granted the application shall fix a
after notice to the adverse party in either reasonable amount of bail considering
case. primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:
Sec. 6. Capital offense defined. – A
capital offense is an offense which, under (a) Financial liability of the
the law existing at the time of its accused to give bail;
commission and of the application for
admission to bail, may be punished with (b) Nature and
death. circumstance of the offense;

Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense (c) Penalty for the offense

punishable by reclusion perpetua or life charged;
imprisonment, not bailable. – No person
charged with a capital offense, or an (d) Character and
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua reputation of the accused;
or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to
bail when evidence of guilt is strong, (e) Age and health of the
regardless of the state of the criminal accused;
prosecution.
(f) Weight of the evidence
Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail against the accused;
application. – At the hearing of an
application for bail filed by a person who

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 44
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

(g) Probability of the office of the provincial, city and municipal

accused appearing at the assessor concerned.
trial;
Within the same period, the accused
(h) Forfeiture of other bail; shall submit to the court his compliance
and his failure to do so shall be sufficient
(i) The fact that the accused cause for the cancellation of the property
was a fugitive from justice bond and his re-arrest and detention.
when arrested; and
Sec. 12. Qualifications of sureties in
(j) Pendency of other cases property bond. – The qualifications of
where the accused is on bail. sureties in a property bond shall be as
follows:
Excessive bail shall not be required.
(a) Each must be a resident
Sec. 10. Corporate surety. – Any owner of real estate within
domestic or foreign corporation, licensed the Philippines;
as a surety in accordance with law and
currently authorized to act as such, may (b) Where there is only one
provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly surety, his real estate must
by the accused and an officer of the be worth at least the
corporation duly authorized by its board amount of undertaking;
of directors.
(c) If there are two or more
Sec. 11. Property bond, how posted. – sureties, each may justify in
A property bond is an undertaking an amount less than that
constituted as lien on the real property expressed in the
given as security for the amount of the undertaking but the
bail. Within ten (10) days after the aggregate of the justified
approval of the bond, the accused shall sums must be equivalent to
cause the annotation of the lien on the the whole amount of the
certificate of title on file with the Registry bail demanded.
of Deeds if the land is registered, or if
unregistered, in the Registration Book on In all cases, every surety must be worth
the space provided therefore, in the the amount specified in his own
Registry of Deeds for the province or city undertaking over and above all just debts,
where the land lies, and on the obligations and properties exempt from
corresponding tax declaration in the execution.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 45
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Sec. 13. Justification of sureties. –
Every surety shall justify by affidavit
taken before the judge that he possesses
the qualification prescribed in the
preceding section. He shall describe the
property given as security, stating the
nature of his title, its encumbrances, the
number and amount of other bails
entered into by him and still
undischarged, and his other liabilities.
The court may examine the sureties upon
oath concerning their sufficiency in such
manner as it may deem proper. No bail
shall be approved unless the surety is
qualified.
Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. – The
accused or any person acting in his behalf
may deposit in cash with the nearest
collector of internal revenue or provincial,
city, or municipal treasurer the amount of
bail fixed by the court, or recommended
by the prosecutor who investigated or
filed the case. Upon submission of a
proper certificate of deposit and a written
undertaking showing compliance with the
requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the
accused shall be discharged from custody.
The money deposited shall be considered
as bail and applied to the payment of fine
and costs while the excess, if any, shall be
returned to the accused or to whoever
made the deposit.
Sec. 15. Recognizance. – Whenever
allowed by law or these Rules, the court
may release a person in custody on his
own recognizance or that of a responsible
person.
Sec. 16. Bail, when not required;
reduced bail or recognizance. – No bail
shall be required when the law or these
Rules so provide.
When a person has been in custody for a
period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment prescribed for
the offense charged, he shall be released
immediately, without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial or the
proceedings on appeal. If the maximum
penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment.
A person in custody for a period equal to
or more than the minimum of the
principal penalty prescribed for the
offense charged, without application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any
modifying circumstance, shall be released
on a reduced bail or on his own
recognizance, at the discretion of the
court.
Sec. 17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in
the amount fixed may be filed with the
court where the case is pending, or in the
absence or unavailability of the judge
thereof, with any regional trial judge,
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial
judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in
the province, city or municipality. If the
accused is arrested in a province, city, or
municipality other than where the case is
pending, bail may also be filed with any
regional trial court of said place, of if no

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 46
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

judge thereof is available, with any
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial
judge, or municipal circuit trial judge
therein.
(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of
discretion, or the accused seeks to be
released on recognizance, the application
may only be filed in the court where the
case is pending, whether on preliminary
investigation, trial, or appeal.
Any person in custody who is not yet
charged in court may apply for bail with
any court in the province, city, or
municipality where he is held.
Sec. 18. Notice of application to
prosecutor. – In the application for bail
under section 8 of this Rule, the court
must give reasonable notice of the
hearing to the prosecutor or require him
to submit his recommendation.
Sec. 19. Release on bail. – The accused
must be discharged upon approval of the
bail by the judge with whom it was filed in
accordance with section 17 of this Rule.
After the accused is admitted to bail, the
court may, upon good cause, either
increase or reduce its amount. When
increased, the accused may be committed
to custody if he does not give bail in the
increased amount within a reasonable
period. An accused held to answer a
criminal charge, who is released without
bail upon filing of the complaint or
information, may, at any subsequent stage
of the proceedings and whenever a strong
showing of guilt appears to the court, be
required to give bail in the amount fixed,
or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.
Sec. 21. Forfeiture of bail. – When the
presence of the accused is required by the
court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall
be notified to produce him before the
court on a given date and time. If the
accused fails to appear in person as
required, his bail shall be declared
forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty
(30) days within which to produce their
principal and to show why no judgment
should be rendered against them for the
amount of their bail. Within the said
period, the bondsmen must:

When bail is filed with a court other (a) produce the body of
than where the case is pending, the judge their principal or give the
who accepted the bail shall forward it, reason for his non-
together with the order of release and production; and
other supporting papers, to the court
where the case is pending, which may, for (b) explain why the accused
good reason, require a different one to be did not appear before the
filed. court when first required to
do so.
Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. –

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 47
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Failing in these two requisites, a exception. – No bail shall be allowed after

judgment shall be rendered against the
bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the
amount of the bail. The court shall not
reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability
of the bondsmen, unless the accused has
been surrendered or is acquitted.
Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail. – Upon
application of the bondsmen, with due
notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be
cancelled upon surrender of the accused
or proof of his death.
The bail shall be deemed automatically
cancelled upon acquittal of the accused,
dismissal of the case, or execution of the
judgment of conviction.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be
without prejudice to any liability on the
bail.
Sec. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. –
For the purpose of surrendering the
accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or,
upon written authority endorsed on a
certified copy of the undertaking, cause
him to be arrested by a police officer or
any other person of suitable age and
discretion.
An accused released on bail may be re-
arrested without the necessity of a
warrant if he attempts to depart from the
Philippines without permission of the
court where the case is pending.
Sec. 24. No bail after final judgment;
a judgment of conviction has become final.
If before such finality, the accused applies
for probation, he may be allowed
temporary liberty under his bail. When no
bail was filed or the accused is incapable
of filing one, the court may allow his
release on recognizance to the custody of
a responsible member of the community.
In no case shall bail be allowed after the
accused has commenced to serve
sentence.
Sec. 25. Court supervision of detainees.
– The court shall exercise supervision
over all persons in custody for the
purpose of eliminating unnecessary
detention. The executive judges of the
Regional Trial Courts shall conduct
monthly personal inspections of
provincial, city, and municipal jails and
the prisoners within their respective
jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the
number of detainees, inquire on their
proper accommodation and health and
examine the condition of the jail facilities.
They shall order the segregation of sexes
and of minors from adults, ensure the
observance of the right of detainees to
confer privately with counsel, and strive
to eliminate conditions inimical to the
detainees.
In cities and municipalities to be
specified by the Supreme Court, the
municipal trial judges or municipal circuit
trial judges shall conduct monthly
personal inspections of the municipal jails
in their respective municipalities and

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 48
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

submit a report to the executive judge of - SC has no constitutional basis and

the Regional Trial Court having it relied in an old case under the
jurisdiction therein. 1935 constitution.

A monthly report of such visitation shall

be submitted by the executive judges to
the Court Administrator which shall state
the total number of detainees, the names
of those held for more than thirty (30)
days, the duration of detention, the crime
charged, the status of the case, the cause
for detention, and other pertinent
information.

Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on

illegal arrest, lack of or irregular
preliminary investigation. – An
application for or admission to bail shall
not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the
warrant issued therefore, or from
assailing the regularity or questioning the
absence of a preliminary investigation of
the charge against him, provided that he
raises them before entering his plea. The
court shall resolve the matter as early as
practicable but not later than the start of
the trial of the case.

BONUS PACK:

In the recent case of Enrile wherein he

was allowed to post bail for humanitarian
reasons was made valid. But according to
Sir Gabriel, it must be revisited. (look on
the requisites).

- It was a pro hac vice

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend, for they can never be broken."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 49