Photo from Pexels | RDNE Stock project
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Indeed, before conviction, every person is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless he or she is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. On the other hand, bail after conviction is not absolute. It is a matter of judicial discretion which must be exercised with grave caution owing to the ascertainment of the accused’s guilt (People v. Napoles, G.R. No. 247611 (Resolution), January 13, 2021)
Bail is defined as 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. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. (Rule 114, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
In theory, the only function of bail is to ensure the appearance of the defendant at the time set for trial. The sole purpose of confining the accused in jail before conviction, it has been observed, is to assure his presence at the trial. In other words, if the denial of bail is authorized in capital offenses, it is only in theory that the proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than face the verdict of the court. Hence the exception to the fundamental right to be bailed should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of probability of evasion of the prosecution. In practice, bail has also been used to prevent the release of an accused who might otherwise be dangerous to society or whom the judges might not want to release.” (Basco v. Rapatalo, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 (Resolution), March 05, 1997)
As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People of the Philippines v. Ramon “Bong” Revilla, JR., Richard A. Cambe, and Janet Lim Napoles, G.R. No. 247611 (Resolution), January 13, 2021, the right to bail is cognate to the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. It is accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his, or her appearance before any court. It is a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s provisional liberty and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial.
The Constitution guarantees every accused’s right to bail, except for those charged with a capital offense when the evidence of guilt is strong. As outlined in Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution:
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)
Section 2 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that all kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
- The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
- The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules;
- The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and
- The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.
Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a person in custody may avail of bail as a matter of right or upon the discretion of the court.
Bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. The same becomes a matter of discretion if the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, that is, bail will be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. (Reyes v. Director or Whoever is in Charge of Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila, G.R. No. 254838, May 22, 2024)
Indeed, before conviction, every person is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless he or she is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. In resolving bail applications of an accused charged with a capital offense, the Court conducts a summary hearing to determine the strength of the evidence of his or her guilt. In the affirmative, the accused cannot enjoy provisional liberty. The rationale for this rule is that the accused is more likely to be tempted to flee rather than await the outcome of the proceeding with a penalty demanding a lifetime of incarceration. On the other hand, bail after conviction is not absolute. It is a matter of judicial discretion which must be exercised with grave caution owing to the ascertainment of the accused’s guilt (People v. Napoles, G.R. No. 247611 (Resolution), January 13, 2021)
As a matter of right
Bail as a matter of right is outlined under Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that:
Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. — All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
When discretionary
On the other hand, Section 5 of the same Rules provides that:
Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
- That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
- That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
- That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
- That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
- That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. However, the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge. “This discretion by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal.” (Basco v. Rapatalo, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 (Resolution), March 05, 1997)
However, no person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (Rule 114, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
In the application for bail of a person charged with a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, must actually be conducted to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. (Basco v. Rapatalo, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335 (Resolution), March 05, 1997)
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.