Waiver of the Right to Bail

People Versus Sergio and Ramil Manes

G.R. No.122737 February 17, 1999
Facts: The above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another to better realize their purpose armed with a knife and a .38 caliber revolver
respectively, with treachery and/or evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attack, stab and shut Nicanor Tamorite with the knife
and .38 caliber revolver with which they were then provided, inflicting upon the said
Nicanor Tamorite stab wounds and gun shot wounds on the different parts of his body
which caused his death immediately thereafter.
The prosecution recommended no bail for the provisional liberty of the accused.The trial
court issued a warrant of arrest against the accused. the accused filed a petition for bail,
which was opposed by the prosecution.
The trial court, however, did not hear the petition for bail. Neither did the accused invoke
the right to bail at any stage of the trial and the trial court rendered judgment and
convicted both the accuse guilty of the crime.
In the appeal, accused questioned the trial court's failure (a) to hear the petition for bail;
(b) to consider defense of relative in favor of Ramil Manes; and (c) to take note that
Sergon Manes was a mere victim of Tamorite's unlawful aggression.The appeal has no
merit. The trial court did not err in finding appellants guilty of murder.
Issue: Whether or not both the accused should be granted the right to bail?
Ruling: No, both the accused should not be granted the right to bail.
Under the law, in offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death,
the accused has no right to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. The court must hear a
petition for bail to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong before deciding to
grant or deny bail to the accused. While the accused can apply for bail and have the court
hear his application summarily and promptly, such right may be waived expressly or
impliedly.
In this case, the trial court proceeded to try the case without resolving the petition for bail
that appellants filed. However, the latter did not call the attention of the trial court to their
unresolved application for bail. It was only in the appeal that they raised this issue. Thus,
for failure to bring to the attention of the trial court at the earliest opportune time,
appellants are deemed to have waived their right to bail.
What is more, the issue has been rendered academic by the conviction of the accused.
When an accused is charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment or death, and evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be
denied, as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion. Thus, the Supreme Court

affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Full text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/feb1999/gr_122737_1999.html

Due Process in Criminal

Alonte Versus Savellano
G.R. No. 131652 March 9, 1998
Facts: Alonte was accused of raping JuvieLyn Punongbayan with accomplice
Buenaventura Concepcion. It was alleged that Concepcion befriended Juvie and had later
lured her into Alonetes house who was then the mayor of Bian, Laguna. The case was
brought before RTC Bian.
The counsel and the prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged
intimidation. While the change of venue was pending, Juvie executed an affidavit of
desistance. The prosecutor continued on with the case and the change of venue was done
notwithstanding opposition from Alonte.The case was raffled to the Manila RTC under J
Savellano. Savellano later found probable cause and had ordered the arrest of Alonte and
Concepcion.
Thereafter, the prosecution presented Juvie and had attested the voluntariness of her
desistance the same being due to media pressure and that they would rather establish new
life elsewhere. Case was then submitted for decision and Savellano sentenced both
accused to reclusion perpetua. Savellano commented that Alonte waived his right to due
process when he did not cross examine Juvie when clarificatory questions were raised
about the details of the rape and on the voluntariness of her desistance.
Issue: Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal due process.
Ruling: NO. Alonte was not being denied of criminal due process.
Petitioners-accused were each represented during the hearing on 07 November 1997 with
their respective counsel of choice. None of their counsel interposed an intention to crossexamine rape victim Juvielyn Punongbayan, even after she attested, in answer to
respondent judge's clarificatory questions, the voluntariness and truth of her two
affidavits one detailing the rape and the other detailing the attempts to buy her
desistance; the opportunity was missed/not used, hence waived. The rule of case law is
that the right to confront and cross-examine a witness "is a personal one and may be
waived." (emphasis supplied) it should be pointed out, however, that the existence of
the waiver must be positively demonstrated.

The standard of waiver requires that it "not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing,
intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences." Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so construed as a
waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.
There can be no short-cut to the legal process, and there can be no excuse for not
affording an accused his full day in court. Due process, rightly occupying the first and
foremost place of honor in our Bill of Rights, is an enshrined and invaluable right that
cannot be denied even to the most undeserving.
This case, in fine, must be remanded for further proceedings. And, since the case would
have to be sent back to the court a quo, this ponencia has carefully avoided making any
statement or reference that might be misconstrued as prejudgment or as pre-empting the
trial court in the proper disposition of the case. The Court likewise deems it appropriate
that all related proceedings therein, including the petition for bail, should be subject to the
proper disposition of the trial court.
The SC ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on the case due
to animosity between him and the parties. There is no showing that Alonte waived his
right. The standard of waiver requires that it not only must be voluntary, but must be
knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances
and likely consequences. Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so
construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption
against waiver. Savellano has not shown impartiality by repeatedly not acting on
numerous petitions filed by Alonte. The case is remanded to the lower court for retrial
and the decision earlier promulgated is nullified.
Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_131652_1998.html