FELICIANO VS. PASICOLAN
FELICIANO VS. PASICOLAN
2 SCRA 888 (1961)
2 SCRA 888 (1961)
This is a petition for writ of
This is a petition for writ of mandamusmandamus to compel the respondent to compel the respondent Judge to decide on the merits of a motion filed by the petitioner in Judge to decide on the merits of a motion filed by the petitioner in which he asks that the Court fix at P10,000.000 the amount of the which he asks that the Court fix at P10,000.000 the amount of the bail for his liberty pending trial.
bail for his liberty pending trial. Here’s what happened:
Here’s what happened:
Petitioner was charged with the crime of kidnapping. When he Petitioner was charged with the crime of kidnapping. When he found out that an Information had been filed and that a warrant found out that an Information had been filed and that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him, he went into hiding. His of arrest had been issued against him, he went into hiding. His lawyer, at the instance of his wife, fined a motion asking that the lawyer, at the instance of his wife, fined a motion asking that the Court fix the amount of the bond at P10K for the petitioner’s Court fix the amount of the bond at P10K for the petitioner’s release pending trial, but the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga release pending trial, but the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga opposed the motion on the ground that the filing was premature opposed the motion on the ground that the filing was premature because the petitioner had been arrested. The respondent Judge because the petitioner had been arrested. The respondent Judge dismissed the motion on the ground that
dismissed the motion on the ground that the petitioner doesthe petitioner does not have the right to ask for the court to admit him to bail not have the right to ask for the court to admit him to bail pending his arrest or surrender.
pending his arrest or surrender.
The petitioner contends that as, under the Constitution, "all The petitioner contends that as, under the Constitution, "all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt guilt is strong," Article III, Section 1, paragraph (16), Constitution of is strong," Article III, Section 1, paragraph (16), Constitution of the Philippines, and that the words "all persons" used in said the Philippines, and that the words "all persons" used in said constitutional provision have been interpreted to mean "all constitutional provision have been interpreted to mean "all persons, without distinction, whether formally charged or not yet persons, without distinction, whether formally charged or not yet so charged with any criminal offense".
so charged with any criminal offense".
ISSUE: WON the judge erred in not granting the petition for ISSUE: WON the judge erred in not granting the petition for admission to bail.
admission to bail. HELD/RATIO: No. HELD/RATIO: No.
There is no question as to the soundness of the rule invoked by There is no question as to the soundness of the rule invoked by petitioner. Such is the law in this jurisdiction. But, the rule is petitioner. Such is the law in this jurisdiction. But, the rule is subject to the limitation that the person applying for admission to subject to the limitation that the person applying for admission to bail should be in the custody of
bail should be in the custody of the law, or otherwise deprived of the law, or otherwise deprived of his liberty.
his liberty. In the case of
In the case of Herras Teehankee vs. RoviraHerras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634, this Court , 75 Phil. 634, this Court held:
held:
xxx According to this provision, the general rule is that xxx According to this provision, the general rule is that any person, before being convicted of any criminal any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, except when he is charged offense, shall be bailable, except when he is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of his guilt is with a capital offense and the evidence of his guilt is strong.
strong. Of course, only those persons who have beenOf course, only those persons who have been either arrested, detained or otherwise deprived of either arrested, detained or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever have occasion to seek the their liberty will ever have occasion to seek the benefits of said provision.
benefits of said provision. But in order that a personBut in order that a person can invoke the constitutional precept,
can invoke the constitutional precept, it is not it is not necessary that he should wait until a formal necessary that he should wait until a formal complaint or information is filed against him
complaint or information is filed against him .. FromFrom the moment he is placed under arrest, detention or the moment he is placed under arrest, detention or restraint by the officers of the law, he can claim this restraint by the officers of the law, he can claim this guarantee of the Bill of Rights, and this right he guarantee of the Bill of Rights, and this right he
retains unless and until he is charged with a capital retains unless and until he is charged with a capital offense and evidence of his guilt is strong.
offense and evidence of his guilt is strong. And in the case of
And in the case of Manigbas vs. LunaManigbas vs. Luna, 52 O.G. 1405, it was held:, 52 O.G. 1405, it was held: xxx the right to bail only accrues when a person is xxx the right to bail only accrues when a person is arrested or deprived of his liberty.
arrested or deprived of his liberty. The purpose of bailThe purpose of bail is to secure one's release and it would be is to secure one's release and it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Thus,Thus, `bail is the security required and given for the release of `bail is the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law.'
a person who is in the custody of the law.'
Without surrendering himself, he filed the motion in which he Without surrendering himself, he filed the motion in which he asks that the court fix the amount of the bail bond for his release asks that the court fix the amount of the bail bond for his release pending trial. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is a free pending trial. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is a free man and is under the jurisprudence not entitled to admission to man and is under the jurisprudence not entitled to admission to bail.
MIRANDA VS. TULIAO
MIRANDA VS. TULIAO
486 SCRA 377 (2006)
486 SCRA 377 (2006)
(I am allowing you to hate me for this digest. Sobrang (I am allowing you to hate me for this digest. Sobrang gulong- gulo ako. I’ll just attach the original. The issue raised by the gulo ako. I’ll just attach the original. The issue raised by the petitioners kasi is not about bail, but the court discussed it in petitioners kasi is not about bail, but the court discussed it in such a way that bail got included. They contrasted. Basically, such a way that bail got included. They contrasted. Basically, it just says the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of it just says the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he/she submits motions, etc even if he’s not the accused when he/she submits motions, etc even if he’s not detained. But the exception is the petition for admission to bail detained. But the exception is the petition for admission to bail –
– the accused has to be held in detention in such case. Sincethe accused has to be held in detention in such case. Since we’re in a hurry, I think that’s the only thing we need, or so I we’re in a hurry, I think that’s the only thing we need, or so I make myself believe.)
make myself believe.)
Facts: Facts:
two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program.
Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program.
Two informations for murder were filed against SPO1 Wilfredo Two informations for murder were filed against SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, SPO1 Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Leaño, SPO1 Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Micu, SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez Alexander Micu, SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, but the venue in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, but the venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila which convicted all of was later transferred to the RTC of Manila which convicted all of the accused and sentenced them to two counts of reclusion the accused and sentenced them to two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. The case was appealed to the Supreme that time, being at large. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court on automatic review where we accused therein was Court on automatic review where we accused therein was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On 27 Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On 27 April 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified April 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio, a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as Alberto P. Dalmacio, a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and the persons responsible for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao.
Elizer Tuliao.
Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz, and Amado Doe, and submitted the petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz, and Amado Doe, and submitted the sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal. Acting Presiding Judge sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal. Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest against petitioners Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
and SPO2 Maderal.
Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the warrants of arrest.
warrants of arrest.
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint Order denying said urgent motion on the ground that, since Joint Order denying said urgent motion on the ground that, since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court. In the meantime, motion cannot be properly heard by the court. In the meantime, petitioners appealed the resolution of State Prosecutor Leo T. petitioners appealed the resolution of State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice.
Reyes to the Department of Justice.
the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case
and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered the cancellation of the Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest issued against petitioner Miranda. He likewise warrant of arrest issued against petitioner Miranda. He likewise applied this Order to petitioners Ocon and Dalmacio.
applied this Order to petitioners Ocon and Dalmacio.
On 12 November 2001, this Court issued a Resolution resolving On 12 November 2001, this Court issued a Resolution resolving to grant the prayer for a temporary restraining order against to grant the prayer for a temporary restraining order against Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the criminal cases. Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the criminal cases. Shortly after the aforesaid resolution, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Shortly after the aforesaid resolution, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Order dated 14
Order dated 14 November 2001 dismissing the two InformationsNovember 2001 dismissing the two Informations for murder against petitioners. On 19 November 2001, this Court for murder against petitioners. On 19 November 2001, this Court took note of
took note of respondent’s cash bondrespondent’s cash bond evidenced by O.R. No.evidenced by O.R. No. 15924532 dated 15 November 2001, and issued the temporary 15924532 dated 15 November 2001, and issued the temporary restraining order while referring the petition to the Court of restraining order while referring the petition to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits.
Appeals for adjudication on the merits. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
With all due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely With all due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing and setting aside the Joint Order of Judge erred in reversing and setting aside the Joint Order of Judge Anastacio D. Angha
Anastacio D. Anghad dated August 17, 2001d dated August 17, 2001 , September 21, 2001,, September 21, 2001, October 16, 2001 and November 14, 2001 issued in criminal October 16, 2001 and November 14, 2001 issued in criminal cases numbered 36-3523 and 36-3524; and, erred in upholding, cases numbered 36-3523 and 36-3524; and, erred in upholding, affirming and reinstating the Order dated July 6, 2001 issued by affirming and reinstating the Order dated July 6, 2001 issued by then Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan, on the alleged then Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan, on the alleged rule that an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not rule that an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
Court: A]n accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not Court: A]n accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired either through over the person of the accused may be acquired either through compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest, or through his compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest, or through his voluntary appearance, such as when he surrenders to the police voluntary appearance, such as when he surrenders to the police or to the court. It is only when the court has already acquired or to the court. It is only when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person that an accused may invoke the jurisdiction over his person that an accused may invoke the processes of the court (Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso V. Combing, Jr., processes of the court (Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso V. Combing, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-91-764, November 6, 1992). Thus, an accused must A.M. No. RTJ-91-764, November 6, 1992). Thus, an accused must first be placed in the custody of the law before the court may first be placed in the custody of the law before the court may validly act on his petition for judicial reliefs
validly act on his petition for judicial reliefs ..33
Proceeding from this premise, the Court of Appeals ruled that Proceeding from this premise, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners Miranda, Ocon and Dalmacio cannot seek any judicial petitioners Miranda, Ocon and Dalmacio cannot seek any judicial relief since they were not yet arrested or otherwise deprived of relief since they were not yet arrested or otherwise deprived of their liberty at the time they filed their "Urgent Motion to their liberty at the time they filed their "Urgent Motion to complete preliminary investigation; to reinvestigate; to recall complete preliminary investigation; to reinvestigate; to recall and/or quash warrants of arrest.
and/or quash warrants of arrest.""44
Petitioners counter the finding of the Court of Appeals by Petitioners counter the finding of the Court of Appeals by arguing that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is arguing that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is required only in applications for bail.
required only in applications for bail. Furthermore,Furthermore, petitioners argue, assuming that such jurisdiction over their petitioners argue, assuming that such jurisdiction over their person is required before the court can act on their motion to person is required before the court can act on their motion to quash the warrant for their arrest, such jurisdiction over their quash the warrant for their arrest, such jurisdiction over their person was already acquired by the court by their filing of the person was already acquired by the court by their filing of the above Urgent Motion.
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot the provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender. judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused ..88CustodyCustody
of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender
surrender,,99while jurisdiction over the person of the accusedwhile jurisdiction over the person of the accused
is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.
is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. 1010OneOne
can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced.
commenced. 1111 Being in the custody of the law signifiesBeing in the custody of the law signifies
restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law.
of the law. 1212Custody of the law is literally custody over theCustody of the law is literally custody over the
body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.
detention.
Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of the court even though there accused can invoke the processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law. is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the law.
law.
. If we allow the granting of bail to persons not in the custody of . If we allow the granting of bail to persons not in the custody of the law, it is foreseeable that many persons who can afford the the law, it is foreseeable that many persons who can afford the bail will remain at large, and
bail will remain at large, and could elude being held to answer could elude being held to answer forfor the commission of the offense if ever he is proven guilty. On the the commission of the offense if ever he is proven guilty. On the other hand, if we allow the quashal of warrants of arrest to other hand, if we allow the quashal of warrants of arrest to persons not in the custody of the law, it would be very rare that a persons not in the custody of the law, it would be very rare that a person not genuinely entitled to liberty would remain scot-free. person not genuinely entitled to liberty would remain scot-free. This is because it is the same judge who issued the warrant of This is because it is the same judge who issued the warrant of arrest who will decide whether or not he followed the arrest who will decide whether or not he followed the Constitution in his determination of probable cause, and he can Constitution in his determination of probable cause, and he can easily deny the motion to quash if he really did find probable easily deny the motion to quash if he really did find probable cause after personally examining the records of the case.
CORTES VS CATRAL
CORTES VS CATRAL
279 SCRA 1 (1997)
279 SCRA 1 (1997)
FACTS: Cortes filed a complaint against Judge Catral for granting FACTS: Cortes filed a complaint against Judge Catral for granting bail without hearing.
bail without hearing.
1.
1. Catral allegedly granted bail in two murder cases, aCatral allegedly granted bail in two murder cases, a crime that is supposedly not bailable) without hearing. crime that is supposedly not bailable) without hearing. Catral says:In one of them, the case was frustrated Catral says:In one of them, the case was frustrated homicide, and the prosecutor recommended bail of homicide, and the prosecutor recommended bail of 200K, plus the circumstantial evidence were weak. 200K, plus the circumstantial evidence were weak. In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal Case 08-866 for murder, the inquest judge issued a Case 08-866 for murder, the inquest judge issued a warrant of arrest for the accused with no bail warrant of arrest for the accused with no bail recommended.
recommended. When the When the case was case was elevated to theelevated to the Regional Trial Court upon information filed by the Regional Trial Court upon information filed by the provincial prosecutor, the information made no provincial prosecutor, the information made no mention of a bailbond.
mention of a bailbond. In the hearing of the In the hearing of the petition topetition to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and recommended bail in the sum of P200,000.00 instead. recommended bail in the sum of P200,000.00 instead. Respondent judge “acting on the said recommendation Respondent judge “acting on the said recommendation and again guided by the provision of Section 9, and again guided by the provision of Section 9, Administrative Circular 12-94 in conjunction with the Administrative Circular 12-94 in conjunction with the evidence extant on the record approved the evidence extant on the record approved the recommendation of Prosecutor Apolinar Carrao.” A recommendation of Prosecutor Apolinar Carrao.” A duplicate copy of trial prosecutor Apolinar Carrao’s duplicate copy of trial prosecutor Apolinar Carrao’s letter dated September 3, 1996 addressed to the letter dated September 3, 1996 addressed to the provincial prosecutor Romeo Sacquing was presented provincial prosecutor Romeo Sacquing was presented by the respondent to disprove the accusation that he by the respondent to disprove the accusation that he granted bail to the accused without conducting any granted bail to the accused without conducting any hearing.
hearing. 2.
2. Catral allegedly reduced bailbond for an illegalCatral allegedly reduced bailbond for an illegal possession of firearms case from 180K (recommended possession of firearms case from 180K (recommended by prosecutor) to 30K without hearing.
by prosecutor) to 30K without hearing.
Catral says: bailbond recommended was 180K. accused Catral says: bailbond recommended was 180K. accused filed for reduction and there was no opposition from filed for reduction and there was no opposition from prosecutor.
prosecutor. 3.
3. Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivera with a homicide caseBarangay Captain Nilo de Rivera with a homicide case was granted with a bailbond of P14,800.00 by Judge was granted with a bailbond of P14,800.00 by Judge Segundo Catral.
Segundo Catral. The amount The amount is too is too low. low. It is It is becausebecause this Nilo de Rivera is another goon of Julio Bong this Nilo de Rivera is another goon of Julio Bong Decierto.
Decierto.
Catral says: he was acting on the recommendation of the Catral says: he was acting on the recommendation of the OIC provincial prosecutor and mindful of the guidelines OIC provincial prosecutor and mindful of the guidelines in fixing a reasonable amount of bailbond coupled by in fixing a reasonable amount of bailbond coupled by the fact that the evidence on record is merely the fact that the evidence on record is merely circumstantial and there was no eyewitness to the circumstantial and there was no eyewitness to the commission of crime granted bailbond in the sum of commission of crime granted bailbond in the sum of P14,800.00.
P14,800.00. 4.
4. .. Jimmy Siriban the right hand man of Julio ‘Bong’Jimmy Siriban the right hand man of Julio ‘Bong’ Dicierto was sued for concubinage and convicted by Dicierto was sued for concubinage and convicted by Judge Herminio del Castillo in
Judge Herminio del Castillo in MTC. MTC. Jimmy SiribanJimmy Siriban appealed and it was elevated to the RTC Branch 08, the appealed and it was elevated to the RTC Branch 08, the sala of Judge Segundo Cat
sala of Judge Segundo Catral. ral. Judge Segundo CatrJudge Segundo Catralal acquitted Jimmy Siriban, rumors in Aparri spread that acquitted Jimmy Siriban, rumors in Aparri spread that the wife of Judge Segundo Catral went to Jimmy the wife of Judge Segundo Catral went to Jimmy Siriban’s house to get the envelop
Siriban’s house to get the envelop
ISSUE: WON the allegations of the complainant would ISSUE: WON the allegations of the complainant would warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against respondent judge.
respondent judge. HELD/RATIO: YES. HELD/RATIO: YES.
Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case. Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case. The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence of The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with the the accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with the constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive. constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive. Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number of factors such as the required to take into account a number of factors such as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.
whether he is a fugitive from justice.
When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death,
death, reclusion perpetuareclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the judge isor life imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, not only to take into otherwise in the discretion of the court, not only to take into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the account the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, but primarily to determine the existence of Rules of Court, but primarily to determine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused. strong evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused. Respondent judge, in two instances, granted bail to an Respondent judge, in two instances, granted bail to an accused charged with murder, without having conducted accused charged with murder, without having conducted any hearing as to whether the evidence of guilt against the any hearing as to whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
accused is strong. In a
In a crime of murder. crime of murder. The provincial prosecutor recommendedThe provincial prosecutor recommended the sum of P200,000.00 as bailbond for each accused. The the sum of P200,000.00 as bailbond for each accused. The records do not reveal whether a hearing was actually conducted records do not reveal whether a hearing was actually conducted on the application for bail although respondent judge implies that on the application for bail although respondent judge implies that there was one, stating that “acting on
there was one, stating that “acting on this recommendathis recommenda tion of thetion of the provincial prosecutor and taking into account the guidelines provincial prosecutor and taking into account the guidelines prescribed in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94, the prescribed in Section 9 of Administrative Circular 12-94, the court issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the amount of court issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the amount of P
P200,000.00 for the provisional liberty of each of the accused.”200,000.00 for the provisional liberty of each of the accused.” Subsequently, counsel for accused Ahmed Duerme filed a motion Subsequently, counsel for accused Ahmed Duerme filed a motion for reduction of bail.
for reduction of bail. The “hearing” of the motion was conductedThe “hearing” of the motion was conducted on August 21, 1995 with the prosecution, not having interposed on August 21, 1995 with the prosecution, not having interposed any opposition, and submitting the resolution of the motion to any opposition, and submitting the resolution of the motion to the sound discretion of
the sound discretion of the court instead. the court instead. Respondent judge thenRespondent judge then issued an order granting a reduced bailbond of P50,000.00 for issued an order granting a reduced bailbond of P50,000.00 for accused Ahmed Duerme inasmuch as “the evidence was not so accused Ahmed Duerme inasmuch as “the evidence was not so strong to warrant the fixation of said amount.” The order strong to warrant the fixation of said amount.” The order granting the reduced bailbond, however, did not contain a granting the reduced bailbond, however, did not contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution.
summary of the evidence for the prosecution.
In another murder case, after conducting a preliminary In another murder case, after conducting a preliminary investigat
investigation, the inquest judge issued a ion, the inquest judge issued a warrant of the arrest fwarrant of the arrest f oror the accused with no
the accused with no bail recommended. bail recommended. When the case When the case waswas elevated to the Regional Trial Court, the information made no elevated to the Regional Trial Court, the information made no mention of
filed a petition for bail.
filed a petition for bail. In the hearing of the In the hearing of the petition topetition to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused was strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence accused was strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and recommended the sum of P200,000.00 instead. Respondent and recommended the sum of P200,000.00 instead. Respondent judge, “acting on said recommendation and again guided by the judge, “acting on said recommendation and again guided by the provision of Section 9, Administrative Circular 12-94 in provision of Section 9, Administrative Circular 12-94 in conjunction
conjunction with the evidence extant on record,” issued an orderwith the evidence extant on record,” issued an order granting bail to the accused in the sum of P200,000.00. Unable to granting bail to the accused in the sum of P200,000.00. Unable to post the said bond, accused through counsel filed a motion to post the said bond, accused through counsel filed a motion to reduce bail. In the course of the hearing of the petition, the public reduce bail. In the course of the hearing of the petition, the public prosecutor manifested that he had no objection to the sum of prosecutor manifested that he had no objection to the sum of P50,000.00 as bail for the accused.
P50,000.00 as bail for the accused. Respondent judge, thRespondent judge, thenen “guided by the factual setting and the
“guided by the factual setting and the supporting evidence extant supporting evidence extant on record” reduced the bail bond from
on record” reduced the bail bond from P200,000.00 toP200,000.00 to P50,000
P50,000.00 as .00 as recommended by the recommended by the prosecutor. prosecutor. Once again, theOnce again, the order granting the bail of P200,000.00, as well as
order granting the bail of P200,000.00, as well as the reduced bailthe reduced bail bond of P50,000.00, did not contain a summary of the evidence bond of P50,000.00, did not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
presented by the prosecution.
the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the applicatio
application of bn of bail to the ail to the sound discretion of the court. sound discretion of the court. A hearingA hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the
in opposition to the application to grant and fix application to grant and fix bail. bail. TheThe importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases wherein the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to wherein the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion 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 for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or
ask searching questions from which it may infer the strength of ask searching questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.”
the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.” The reason for this
The reason for this is plain. is plain. Inasmuch as the Inasmuch as the determination of determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, It may rightly be exercised only is a matter of judicial discretion, It may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the
after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. court at the hearing. SinceSince the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal. examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal.
The procedural lapse of respondent judge is aggravated by the The procedural lapse of respondent judge is aggravated by the fact that even though the accused in Criminal Case No. 07-874, fact that even though the accused in Criminal Case No. 07-874, People v. Ahmed Duerme, have yet to be arrested, respondent People v. Ahmed Duerme, have yet to be arrested, respondent already fixed bail in
already fixed bail in the sum the sum of P200,000.0of P200,000.00. 0. Respondent Respondent evidently knew that the accused were still at large as he even had evidently knew that the accused were still at large as he even had to direct their arrest in the same order where he simultaneously to direct their arrest in the same order where he simultaneously granted them bail. At this juncture, there is a need to reiterate the granted them bail. At this juncture, there is a need to reiterate the basic principle that the right to bail can only be availed of by a basic principle that the right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his 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 liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed. a petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
400 SCRA 129 (2003)
400 SCRA 129 (2003)
FACTS: Spouses Romeo Nabor and Liliosa Napay and their FACTS: Spouses Romeo Nabor and Liliosa Napay and their nine-year old daughter Rosaldiza Nabor tenanted and lived in a year old daughter Rosaldiza Nabor tenanted and lived in a coconut plantation located in Barangay Salugan, Camilig, Albay. coconut plantation located in Barangay Salugan, Camilig, Albay. Rosaldiza helped in the household chores by
Rosaldiza helped in the household chores by washing the family’swashing the family’s dirty laundry every Saturday at the barangay reservoir. The route dirty laundry every Saturday at the barangay reservoir. The route to the reservoir was uninhabited. Going there was quite a long to the reservoir was uninhabited. Going there was quite a long trek.
trek. It usually took Rosaldiza fifteen minutes to It usually took Rosaldiza fifteen minutes to negotiate thenegotiate the grassy path from the reservoir to their house.
grassy path from the reservoir to their house.
In 1989, Romeo engaged the services of Alex Manallo, as coconut In 1989, Romeo engaged the services of Alex Manallo, as coconut gatherer. Alex helped the Nabor couple gather coconut produce gatherer. Alex helped the Nabor couple gather coconut produce once a week.
once a week.
One day, in 1992, Rosaldiza went to the reservoir to wash her One day, in 1992, Rosaldiza went to the reservoir to wash her clothes and to take a bath. On her way back home, Manallo clothes and to take a bath. On her way back home, Manallo suddenly appeared from the bushes, grabbed her and raped her. suddenly appeared from the bushes, grabbed her and raped her. Alex dressed up and warned her not to tell her parents, brothers Alex dressed up and warned her not to tell her parents, brothers and sisters of the incident, otherwise, he would kill them all. and sisters of the incident, otherwise, he would kill them all. Rosaldiza put on her clothes and ran home. Rosaldiza related to Rosaldiza put on her clothes and ran home. Rosaldiza related to her mother what had happened to her.
her mother what had happened to her.
Medico-Legal. Then Rosaldiza and Liliosa went back to the police Medico-Legal. Then Rosaldiza and Liliosa went back to the police station and executed their respective sworn statements. An station and executed their respective sworn statements. An information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, charging Alex with rape.
City, charging Alex with rape. No bail was recommended
No bail was recommended for the provisional liberty of Alex.for the provisional liberty of Alex. He filed, on May 8, 1992, a motion for bail with no specific date He filed, on May 8, 1992, a motion for bail with no specific date and time for the hearing thereof. Upon
and time for the hearing thereof. Upon the filing of said motion,the filing of said motion, the Executive Judge issued an order granting the motion the Executive Judge issued an order granting the motion andand fixing his bail bond at P50,000.00.
fixing his bail bond at P50,000.00. On the same day, Alex postedOn the same day, Alex posted a property bond which was immediately approved by the a property bond which was immediately approved by the court
court . Alex was forthwith released from detention.. Alex was forthwith released from detention.
At his arraignment on June 17, 1992, Alex, duly assisted by At his arraignment on June 17, 1992, Alex, duly assisted by counsel
counsel de oficiode oficio, pleaded not guilty. Trial was set on June 18,, pleaded not guilty. Trial was set on June 18, 1992. The prosecution prayed the trial court to cancel the bond of 1992. The prosecution prayed the trial court to cancel the bond of Alex considering that his petition for bail was granted without Alex considering that his petition for bail was granted without due hearing.
due hearing. However, the trial court However, the trial court held in abeyance resolutionheld in abeyance resolution of the motion until after the prosecutor shall have presented its of the motion until after the prosecutor shall have presented its witnesses on June 18, 1992.
witnesses on June 18, 1992. The trial court stated that The trial court stated that thethe evidence to be adduced by the prosecution would be its evidence evidence to be adduced by the prosecution would be its evidence in Alex’s petition for bail and trial on the merits.
in Alex’s petition for bail and trial on the merits. On June 18,On June 18, 1992, the trial court issued an order that Alex would remain free 1992, the trial court issued an order that Alex would remain free on his bond until June 22, 1992, the date set for the hearing on on his bond until June 22, 1992, the date set for the hearing on his petition for bail. However,
his petition for bail. However, Alex failed Alex failed to attend the to attend the trial ontrial on said date. The trial court issued and order for his arrest. said date. The trial court issued and order for his arrest. However, Alex could no long
However, Alex could no longer be found at his address. er be found at his address. It wasIt was only six years thereafter, or on January 22, 1998, that he was only six years thereafter, or on January 22, 1998, that he was arrested.
arrested.
He denied raping Rosaldiza and claimed that they were lovers. He He denied raping Rosaldiza and claimed that they were lovers. He was found guilty. (short story version.)
was found guilty. (short story version.)
ISSUE (in the case): WON the trial court gravely erred in ISSUE (in the case): WON the trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant not on the basis of the strength of convicting accused-appellant not on the basis of the strength of
the prosecution’s evidence but rather on the weakness of the the prosecution’s evidence but rather on the weakness of the evidence for the defense
evidence for the defense
HELD/RATIO: NO. Even a cursory reading of the decision of the HELD/RATIO: NO. Even a cursory reading of the decision of the trial court will readily show that it convicted appellant of the trial court will readily show that it convicted appellant of the crime charged in light of the testimony of Rosaldiza and Dr. crime charged in light of the testimony of Rosaldiza and Dr. Loria-Florece and the physical evidence adduced by the prosecution. Florece and the physical evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial court considered appellant’s flight from the scene of the The trial court considered appellant’s flight from the scene of the crime, his having jumped bail and for eluding arrest for six long crime, his having jumped bail and for eluding arrest for six long years as evidence of his guilt for the crime charged
years as evidence of his guilt for the crime charged BAIL-RELATED (copy-paste):
BAIL-RELATED (copy-paste):
The Court cannot write
The Court cannot write finis finis to this case without making of recordto this case without making of record its concern and displeasure at the egregious procedural lapse of its concern and displeasure at the egregious procedural lapse of the trial court in
the trial court in granting bail to appellant. granting bail to appellant. It bears stressing that It bears stressing that he was charged with rape punishable by
he was charged with rape punishable by reclusion perpetuareclusion perpetua toto death.
death. Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules of CrimSection 5, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules of Criminalinal Procedure reads:
Procedure reads:
SEC. 5.
SEC. 5. Burden of proof in Bail applicationBurden of proof in Bail application .. –– At the hearing of anAt the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed by any person who is in application for admission to bail filed by any person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by
custody for the commission of an offense punishable by reclusionreclusion perpetua
perpetua to death, the prosecution has the burden of showingto death, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of
that evidence of guilt is strong. guilt is strong. The evidence presented duringThe evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be
the bail hearings shall be considered automaconsidered automatically reproduced at tically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the witness is any witness for additional examination unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify. dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify. (please see previous case for the duties of the trial court in (please see previous case for the duties of the trial court in resolving a motion or petition for bail)
resolving a motion or petition for bail)
In this case, the appellant filed his motion for bail on May 8, In this case, the appellant filed his motion for bail on May 8, 1992.
1992. There was no specThere was no specific date and time for thific date and time for the hearing of saide hearing of said motion.
motion. And yet, And yet, onon the same day that the motion was filed,the same day that the motion was filed, the trial court granted the said motion and fixed the bail the trial court granted the said motion and fixed the bail bond for the provisional liberty of the appellant in the bond for the provisional liberty of the appellant in the amount of P50,000.00 without any factual basis therefore amount of P50,000.00 without any factual basis therefore stated in the order
stated in the order. . Even when Even when the public prosecutor prayedthe public prosecutor prayed the court on June 17, 1992, for the cancellation of the property the court on June 17, 1992, for the cancellation of the property bond of the appellant on the ground that
bond of the appellant on the ground that the trial court grantedthe trial court granted his motion for bail without even affording the prosecution a his motion for bail without even affording the prosecution a chance to be heard thereon and adduce its evidence in chance to be heard thereon and adduce its evidence in opposition thereto
opposition thereto, the trial court held in abeyance resolution, the trial court held in abeyance resolution thereof and even allowed the appellant to remain free on his thereof and even allowed the appellant to remain free on his bond in
bond in the amount the amount of only P50,000.00. of only P50,000.00. Patently, the prosecutionPatently, the prosecution was deprived of its right to due process.
was deprived of its right to due process.
A bail application does not only involve the right of the accused to A bail application does not only involve the right of the accused to temporary liberty, but likewise the right of the State to protect temporary liberty, but likewise the right of the State to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements.
elements. These two rights must These two rights must be balanced by a be balanced by a magistrate inmagistrate in the scale of justice, hence, the necessity for hearing to guide his the scale of justice, hence, the necessity for hearing to guide his exercise of jurisdiction.
LAVIDES VS CA
LAVIDES VS CA
G.R. 129670
G.R. 129670
February 1, 2000
February 1, 2000
FACTS: Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child FACTS: Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 (an act providing for stronger abuse under R.A. No. 7610 (an act providing for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, deterrence and special protection against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination, providing penalties for its exploitation and discrimination, providing penalties for its violation, and other purposes). His arrest was made without a violation, and other purposes). His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. It warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. It appears that on April 3, 1997, the parents of complainant Lorelie appears that on April 3, 1997, the parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter, then 16 San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter, then 16 years old, had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation years old, had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation that night at petitioner’s room at the Metropolitan Hotel in that night at petitioner’s room at the Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman, Quezon City. Apparently, this was not the first time the Diliman, Quezon City. Apparently, this was not the first time the police received reports of
police received reports of petitioner’s activitipetitioner’s activities.es.
When petitioner opened the door, the police saw him with When petitioner opened the door, the police saw him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a t-shirt and an underwear, Lorelie, who was wearing only a t-shirt and an underwear, whereupon they arrested him. Based on the sworn statement of whereupon they arrested him. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers, which complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers, which were submitted at the inquest, an information for violation of Art. were submitted at the inquest, an information for violation of Art. III, §5(b) of R.A.
III, §5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 was filed No. 7610 was filed against petitioner.against petitioner.
petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3
Arrest; and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a
Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged .. nine more informations for child abuse were filed against nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by three other minor children
three other minor children
No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed separate No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases.
applications for bail in the nine cases.
TRIAL COURT: 2. The accused is entitled to bail in all the TRIAL COURT: 2. The accused is entitled to bail in all the above-entitled case. He is hereby granted the right to post bail in the entitled case. He is hereby granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of P800,000.00 for amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of P800,000.00 for all the cases under the following conditions:
all the cases under the following conditions:
a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. of appearance during the trial of these cases. He shall and must always be present at the He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases;
hearings of these cases; b)
b) In the event that he shall not be able toIn the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall be automatically do so, his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia cases shall proceed to trial in absentia ;;
c) The hold-departure Order of this Court c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10, 1997 stands; and
dated April 10, 1997 stands; and
d)
d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to enable this only after the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused
over the accused;;
Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him. Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial court to Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled on May 23, 1997. He filed a suspend the arraignment scheduled on May 23, 1997. He filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done reduced to P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment.
prior to his arraignment.
the trial court, in separate orders, denied petitioner’s
the trial court, in separate orders, denied petitioner’s motions tomotions to reduce bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to suspend reduce bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to suspend arraignment. Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned during which arraignment. Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then ordered he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of P800,000.00, subject to the conditions in the May 16, 1997 order P800,000.00, subject to the conditions in the May 16, 1997 order and the "hold-departure" order of April 10, 1997. The pre-trial and the "hold-departure" order of April 10, 1997. The pre-trial conference was set on June 7, 1997.
conference was set on June 7, 1997.
The Court of Appeals declared conditions (a) and (b) invalid but The Court of Appeals declared conditions (a) and (b) invalid but declined to pass upon the validity of condition (d) on the ground declined to pass upon the validity of condition (d) on the ground that the issue had become moot and academic. Petitioner takes that the issue had become moot and academic. Petitioner takes issue with the Court of Appeals with respect to its treatment of issue with the Court of Appeals with respect to its treatment of condition (d) of the May 16, 1997 order of the trial court which condition (d) of the May 16, 1997 order of the trial court which makes petitioner’
makes petitioner’s arraignment a prerequisite to the approval of s arraignment a prerequisite to the approval of his bail bonds. His contention is that this condition is void and his bail bonds. His contention is that this condition is void and that his arraignment was also invalid because it was held that his arraignment was also invalid because it was held pursuant to such invalid condition.
pursuant to such invalid condition.
ISSUE: WON the condition is void and the arraignment invalid. ISSUE: WON the condition is void and the arraignment invalid. HELD: CONDITION IS VOID.
HELD: CONDITION IS VOID.
bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. In the second then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. In the second place, the trial court could ensure the presence of petitioner at place, the trial court could ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment. presence at any stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment. Under Rule 114, §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of Under Rule 114, §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules," proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules," while under Rule 116, §1(b) the presence of the accused at the while under Rule 116, §1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required
arraignment is required
to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly
trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.
charge him with a crime and his right to bail.
The condition imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16, 1997 The condition imposed in the trial court’s order of May 16, 1997 that the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that that the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that he must be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in he must be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114. For another condition of bail under accordance with Rule 114. For another condition of bail under Rule 114, §2(c) is that "The failure of the accused to appear at the Rule 114, §2(c) is that "The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice to him or his trial without justification despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, trial shall present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, trial shall proceed
proceed in absentiain absentia." Jjsc." Jjsc
Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials
Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentiain absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt, (b) during trial whenever whether of innocence or of guilt, (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes, and (c) at the promulgation necessary for identification purposes, and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case the of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived.
waived.
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT OF IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT OF PETITIONER ON MAY 23, 1997 WAS ALSO INVALID. Contrary to PETITIONER ON MAY 23, 1997 WAS ALSO INVALID. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the
petitioner’s contention, the arraignment did not emanate fromarraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be the invalid condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment." Even without such a condition, made only after the arraignment." Even without such a condition, the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are his arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are valid.