Right To Bail In The Philippines | What You Need To Know

Introduction

This article will discuss the applicability of bail in certain circumstances, accused’s right to bail, its Constitutional basis, and the jurisprudential guidelines used by our Courts in granting or rejecting bail.

Any person who is arrested would normally seek temporary liberty especially if it would prevent detention in cramped and congested jail and detention areas in a protracted litigation.

Bail exists as a right for every person charged with an offense to enjoy freedom from detention by giving an assurance to the authorities that he will be present in all stages of the trial of his case.

Bail can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon practice of paying a “wergeld” or a system of payment made to persons or property injured. It later developed into family members acting as sureties for the accused by pledging to pay the wergeld for the accused’s liabilities.

The U.S. Supreme Court described bail in the case of Stack vs. Boyle¹ as like that of the ancient practice of securing the oaths of responsible persons to stand as sureties for the accused. Clearly, the first forms of bail were that of the personal surety system which is almost similar to recognizance under the present law.

The Norman Invasion of England changed the wergeld system by introducing a criminal justice system which closely resembles what we practice today. The Normans implemented the prison system and corporal punishment. With more and more people being incarcerated, the prisons became filled with detainees opening up a can of problems like inhumane living conditions, diseases, and draining of the public treasury.

This led to the creation of the writ de homine replegiando where the courts ordered the sheriff to release an individual under detention except for particular offenses. The sheriffs were the primary bail setters at the time which eventually led to abuses. The Statute of Westminster of 1275 was enacted to correct these wrongs and set the guidelines of bail and distinguish bailable and non-bailable offenses.

The Americans adopted the same concept. The Tenth Amendment to its Constitution expressly disallows excessive bail which impliedly recognizes bail as a constitutional and inalienable right. The Philippines was largely influenced by the American notion of bail.

Bail has become synonymous with release and the bail system was not to be used to intentionally detain. Thus, bail exists for the benefit of the accused. In People vs. Escobar,² bail was recognized by the Supreme Court as cognate to the fundamental right to be presumed innocent.

The accused has the right to temporary liberty for two main reasons: to prevent punishment to an accused who might be later on acquitted of his charges and to grant him unhampered preparation in his defense. The right to bail is coextensive with the presumption of the innocence of the accused.

Since prior to judgment, the accused is deemed innocent, the law favors upon him the right to be free from detention because it would be much more beneficial to him. The effects of detention upon the accused are irreversible and if it is later proved that he is innocent of the accusations against him it would be too late in the day to restore him to his previous condition.

The second purpose is a practical consideration. If the accused is detained, he would be placed at a disadvantage in securing evidence and witnesses in his favor. Hence, the law foregoes with his detention to allow him to exhaust his resources in preparing for his defense.

Is bail a constitutional right in the Philippines?

The answer is found in Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides:

“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.”³

Thus, right to bail is a recognized and guaranteed right under the Fundamental Law. Under this provision, there are several important points worthy of note.

First, the Constitution expressly recognizes it by affording every person facing criminal prosecution to have the right to bail subject to a few exceptions such as those charged with an offense where reclusion perpetua is the imposable penalty and when evidence of guilt is strong. Therefore, the right to bail is the general rule.

Second, bail can be secured in several forms. What is required is that it be sufficient. Bail can be in the form of cash, surety, or property bond. Bail can also be secured through recognizance. Republic Act [RA] No. 10389⁴ governs recognizance which is a form of securing the release of a person of abject poverty who is unable to post bail to the custody of any qualified member of the community where he resides.

Third, the right to bail is available at all times even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. In Nava vs. Gatmaitan,⁵ the High Court had the opportunity to rule on this issue. Thus:

“If it be contended that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus includes the suspension of the distinct right to bail or to be provisionally at liberty, it would a fortiori imply the suspension of all his other rights (even the rights to be tried by a court) that may win for him ultimate acquittal and, hence, absolute freedom. The latter result is not insisted upon for being patently untenable.”⁶

Fourth, the right of bail is available primarily in criminal proceedings. However, bail is also available in extradition proceedings.

As explained by the Court in Hong Kong vs. Hon. Olalia,⁷ bail should be available to persons under deportation since they are also detained and the Philippines is bound by its international obligations to the fundamental rights of liberty which includes the right to bail.

Nonetheless, if there is already an Order of Deportation which the Bureau of Immigration issues and the same has become final, the Regional Trial Courts have no power to release such alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings because there is no law authorizing it.⁸

Similarly, the right does not extend to military proceedings where the right to speedy trial is given more emphasis.⁹

Fifth, bail should never be exorbitant. In De la Camara vs. Enage,¹⁰ the Supreme Court reminded that where the right of bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive.

What is right to bail?

As defined by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, bail is the security given 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.¹¹

As an important requisite, only those individuals who have been arrested, detained, or deprived of their freedom and liberty will ever have opportunity to seek  the protective mantle extended by the right to bail.

Jurisprudence provides that the right to bail is connected to the person’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent, that no one should  be committed to imprisonment at the beginning since after trial, if his guilt is not  established beyond reasonable doubt, he would be entitled to acquittal anyway.

However, bail as a matter of right is not at all times available to all persons under custody of the law, there are rules and conditions to follow. The Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for instances to avail of bail as a matter of right of the accused or at the discretion of the court.

As such, there are situation where an accused will not be eligible outright to exercise his right to bail. In this, case, bail is now a matter of discretion. Therefore, the Court has the right to grant or deny the accused’s application for bail in this instance.

When is bail a matter of right?

To summarize, bail is a matter of right under the following instances:

• Before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Trial Circuit, bail is a matter of right.¹²
• Before conviction by the RTC, whether in the exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction, bail is a matter of right, if the accused is not charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.¹³

What is a Petition for Bail?

Petition for Bail is a legal remedy filed by the person, who is in custody of the law, asking the court to permit his temporary release by giving a security, either furnished by him or a bondsman. This is to assure his appearance before any court as required under the conditions the court deemed proper to ask of that applicant.

This is possible in honor of the well-known principle of presumption of innocence which cannot be defeated even by the presumption of regularity by the proper authorities. It is also in conjunction with the right of the person to avoid imprisonment for the meantime until his conviction is established and to secure his attendance at the trial.

The person seeking his temporary release need not wait for a complaint or information to be filed against him, or even arraignment. What matters is that the applicant is already in the custody of the law.

When an individual is in custody of the law, it means that there is restraint on his person, either by being in detention or lawfully confined in a facility that curtails his liberty. Such custody is considered acquired over the person either by his lawful arrest or voluntary surrender.

Under what circumstances may a petition for bail be granted?

The general rule is that all persons in custody shall be allowed to post bail as a matter of right. As mentioned, this rule refers to the criminal cases within the competence of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, which subject offenses thereof are bailable as a matter of right.

The simple reason is that these courts do not have jurisdiction to try cases that are punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Before conviction or after conviction by these courts of the accused is immaterial. It will be deemed that the bail is a matter of right.

In the case of People vs. Escobar,¹⁴ the court emphasized that bail may be a matter of right, provided that the right to bail is prior to conviction by the Regional Trial Court for offenses not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

In the event that the applicant is convicted by the Regional Trial Court for such offenses, the right to bail becomes a matter of discretion and eventually will be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong.

“To determine whether evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the conduct of bail hearings is required where the prosecution has the burden of proof, subject to the right of the defense to cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence in rebuttal. The court is to conduct only a summary hearing, consistent with the purpose of merely determining the weight of evidence for purposes of bail.” ¹⁵

Similarly in Leviste vs. Court of Appeals,¹⁶ the court held that, “if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years then bail is a matter of discretion, except when any of the enumerated circumstances under paragraph 3 of section 5, Rule 114 is present then bail shall be denied.”¹⁷

For reference, paragraph 3 of Section 5 of Rule 114 provides that even if the penalty imposed by the trial court is not death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment but merely imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be DENIED bail, or if his bail already allowed shall be cancelled, if the prosecution shows the following or other similar circumstances:¹⁸

(a) that the accused is a recidivist or a quasi-recidivist, a habitual delinquent or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;¹⁹

(b) that the accused has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;¹⁹

(c) that the accused committed the offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon;¹⁹

(d) that the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or¹⁹

(e) that there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.¹⁹

Under what circumstances may a petition for bail be denied?

To reiterate, bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law to guarantee his appearance before any court, as heretofore stated.

The right to bail is a constitutional right which flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused, who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom, as a general rule, during the pendency of his criminal case. Thus, the right to bail only accrues when a person is arrested or deprived of his liberty.

The general rule is that all persons in custody of the law shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right. However, bail may not be allowed in the following cases, it being a matter of discretion upon the Court to allow the provisional liberty of the accused on bail:

A person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be not admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution as provided by Sec. 7, Rule 114, Rules of Court.

Bail shall not be allowed, as well, after a judgment of conviction by the Regional Trial Court has become final. If before finality of the judgment, the accused applies for probation, he may be permitted to post bail for his temporary liberty, while his probation is being processed.

In the case of Leviste vs. Court of Appeals,²⁰ it held that after conviction by the trial court, the presumption of innocence terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends. From then on, the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.

At the risk of being repetitious, such discretion must be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. Considering that the accused was in fact convicted by the trial court, allowance of bail pending appeal should be guided by a stringent standards approach.

Furthermore, letting the accused out on bail despite his conviction may destroy the deterrent effect of our criminal laws.  Finally, indiscriminate allowance of bail in spite of conviction invites frivolous and time-wasting appeals which will make a mockery of our criminal justice system and court processes.

When is bail a matter of discretion? 

Bail can be granted under two concepts: bail as a matter of right (as we discussed above) and bail as a matter of discretion. The grounds for granting bail is laid down under Section 4 of Rule 114 which provides that all persons in custody shall, before conviction by a regional trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right.

The general rule is that prior to conviction by the Regional Trial Court of a criminal offense, an accused is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right.

Under the said general rule, upon proper application for admission to bail, the court having custody of the accused should, as a matter of course, grant the same after a hearing conducted to specifically determine the conditions of the bail in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 114.

Moreover, the doctrine of bail as a matter of right as provided under our Constitution and Rules of Court clearly states that an accused has the right to bail if the offense charged is “not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment” before conviction by the Regional Trial Court.

Under the Revised Penal Code, crimes such as disturbance of proceedings or unlawful assembly, forging treasury or bank notes, falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and private documents, and wireless, telegraph, and telephone messages are examples of offenses that are bailable under the doctrine of bail as a matter of right.

Conversely, the grant of bail is discretionary upon the court when the accused is charged with a capital offense and the penalty is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death (death penalty is suspended in this jurisdiction).

In the same vein, under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, admission to bail is discretionary upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

To recall, Sec 4(b) of Rule 114 provides that bail is a matter or right before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In the case of Eduardo San Miguel vs. Maceda,²¹ the court explained:

“As we opined in Andres v. Beltran, it is a misconception that when an accused is charged with the crime of murder, he is not entitled to bail at all or that the crime of murder is non-bailable. The grant of bail to an accused charged with an offense that carries with it the penalty of reclusion perpetua x x x is discretionary on the part of the trial court. In other words, the accused is still entitled to bail but no longer “as a matter of right.” Instead, it is discretionary and calls for a judicial determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong in order to grant bail. The prosecution is accorded ample opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong.”²²

In the case at bar, the court explained that just because a crime, offense, or felony carries with it a penalty, either of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, does not mean that the accused is automatically not entitled to bail. As long as the evidence of guilt is not strong, admission to bail remains an available remedy on the part of the accused.

Crimes, offenses, felonies for which bail is a matter of discretion

Under the Revised Penal Code, crimes such as murder, rebellion or insurrection, parricide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery with homicide, and rape carries with it the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Bail, although may still be available, the grant thereof rests upon the sound discretion of the Court when evidence of the guilt is not strong.

On the other hand, there are special penal laws which carry with it the penalty of life imprisonment such as maintenance of den and sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165²³ or when the owner or driver is killed during the commission of carnapping under RA 10883.²⁴ In the same manner, such offense may be treated as such with respect to the grant or denial of bail application.

It is worthy to note as well the peculiar grant of bail in the case of Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan.²⁵ The Supreme Court held that:

“Any person before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights, and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be recognized.”²⁶

The Supreme Court went on to consider the state of health of the Petitioner in the above case as a yardstick in granting the latter’s petition for bail. Thus:

“It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial.”²⁶

In this landmark case, the Court held that an accused can post bail as a matter of right if he is not charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong.

It was also held that, even if the accused was charged with a capital offense or offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as long as the evidence of guilt is not strong, he can still post bail.

Proof Evident or Presumption of Guilt is Strong

The right to bail was discussed in the case entitled People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Alfredo Cabral and Roderick Odiamar.²⁷

This was a case decided by the Supreme Court on 18 February 1999 and involved a charge of rape filed by Cecille Buenafe against respondent Roderick Odiamar.

In order to secure temporary liberty, Respondent Odiamar filed a motion praying that he be released on bail. The lower court granted the motion for bail believing that the evidence was not strong enough.

The office of the Solicitor General disagreed with the lower court. It opined that aside from failing to include some pieces of evidence in the summary, the trial also misapplied some well-established doctrines of criminal law.²⁸

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held:

“The 1987 Constitution in Article III, Section 13 of the Bill of Rights provides:²⁸

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. (Emphasis supplied)²⁸

In view of the above exception to the constitutional guarantee on bail and in accordance with its rule-making powers, the Supreme Court, in promulgating the Rules of Court, adopted the following provision:²⁸

Sec. 7. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (Emphasis supplied)²⁸

In this case, accused-respondent was being charged with rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. As such, bail is discretionary and not a matter of right. The grant or denial of an application for is, therefore, dependent on whether the evidence of guilt is strong which the lower should determine in a hearing called for the purpose. The determination of the evidence of guilt is strong, in this regard, is a matter of judicial discretion. While the lower court would never be deprived of its mandated prerogative to exercise judicial discretion, this Court would unhesitatingly reverse the trial court’s findings if found to be laced with grave abuse of discretion.”²⁸

The Court added that “the law mandates the determination of whether proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong.”²⁸

Moreover, the test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt.

As such, the court is ministerially bound to decide which circumstances and factors are present which would show evident guilt or presumption of guilt as defined above.

Charge with an Offense Punishable by Life Imprisonment, Out on Bail during Trial

In this situation, the accused was allowed to post bail, upon motion filed for such purpose, which the trial Court granted. While the grant of bail is discretionary upon the trial Court, the latter, at that time, has recognized that the evidence of guilt is not yet strong, hence, application for bail was granted.

Nonetheless, upon the conclusion of the criminal case against the accused, the trial Court, finding that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt, has convicted the latter of the crime as charged, thereby, sentencing him to life imprisonment (or reclusion perpetua). What will happen now to the previous grant of bail to the accused on account of his conviction?

What will  happen to the bail granted to the accused since he was convicted of the crime charged?

The Supreme Court has categorically answered this in the case of Leviste vs. Court of Appeals.²⁹ It ruled that:

“Hence, for the guidelines of the bench and bar with respect to future as well as pending cases before the trial courts, this Court en banc lays down the following policies concerning the effectivity of the bail of the accused, to wit:³⁰

“1) When an accused is charged with an offense which under the law existing at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail is punishable by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua and is out on bail, and after trial is convicted by the trial court of the offense charged or of a lesser offense than that charged in the complaint or information, he may be allowed to remain free on his original bail pending the resolution of his appeal, unless the proper court directs otherwise pursuant to Rule 114, Sec. 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, as amended;³⁰

“2) When an accused is 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 and is out on bail, and after trial is convicted by the trial court of a lesser offense than that charged in the complaint or information, the same rule set forth in the preceding paragraph shall be applied;³⁰

“3) When an accused is 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 and is out on bail and after trial is convicted by the trial court of the offense charged, his bond shall be cancelled and the accused shall be placed in confinement pending resolution of his appeal.³⁰

“As to criminal cases covered under the third rule abovecited, which are now pending appeal before his Court where the accused is still on provisional liberty, the following rules are laid down:³⁰

“1) This Court shall order the bondsman to surrender the accused within ten (10) days from notice to the court of origin. The bondsman thereupon, shall inform this Court of the fact of surrender, after which, the cancellation of the bond shall be ordered by this Court;³⁰

“2) The RTC shall order the transmittal of the accused to the National Bureau of Prisons thru the Philippine National Police as the accused shall remain under confinement pending resolution of his appeal;³⁰

“3) If the accused-appellant is not surrendered within the aforesaid period of ten (10) days, his bond shall be forfeited and an order of arrest shall be issued by this Court. The appeal taken by the accused shall also be dismissed under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court as he shall be deemed to have jumped his bail. (emphasis supplied) x x x x . . . .”³⁰

Consequently, while the accused has been granted bail during the pendency of the criminal case before the Regional Trial Court even for an offense punishable by life imprisonment (or reclusion perpetua), which normally “no bail” is recommended by the trial prosecutor, however, upon his conviction for the same offense sentencing him to life imprisonment as provided, the grant of bail is automatically cancelled, and the bail itself is revoked.

Conclusion

The right to bail is a constitutional right that is enshrined under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It is one of the remedies or protections granted to individuals after arrest. This right answers the urgent concern on securing temporary liberty.

Although this right is recognized in no less than the highest law of the land, this is not a matter of right in all cases. In some others, the right to bail is subject to judicial discretion. As we have already explained above, there are conditions and rules that need to be studied by a lawyer in order to properly protect the rights of his or her client. Therefore, understanding bail and its requirements is very crucial.

1. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 342, 5 [1951][↩]
2. G.R. No. 214300, July 26, 2017 [833 SCRA 180, 195][↩]
3. Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution[↩]
4. RA 10389[↩]
5. G.R. No. L-4855, October 11, 1951[↩]
6. Ibid.[↩]
7. G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007 [521 SCRA 470][↩]
8. Carlos Go vs. Luis Ramos, G. R. No. 167569, September 4, 2009 [598 SCRA 266][↩]
9. Commendador vs. De Villa, G. R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991[↩]
10. G.R. Nos. L-32951-2, September 17, 1971[↩]
11. Section 1, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure[↩]
12. Section 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure[↩]
13. Id.[↩]
14. Supra.[↩]
15. People vs. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019[↩]
16. G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010[↩]
17. Ibid.[↩]
18. Section 5, Par. 3, Rules of Criminal Procedure[↩]
19. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
20. Supra.[↩]
21. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749, April 4, 2007[↩]
22. Ibid.[↩]
23. RA 9165[↩]
24. RA 10883[↩]
25. G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015[↩]
26. Ibid.[↩][↩]
27. G. R. No. 131909 February 18, 1999[↩]
28. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
29. G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010[↩]
30. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]