CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution mandates:

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be 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.

4 KINDS OF BAIL

Bail is a security for the release of a person in the custody of the law which may be supplied by
him or by a bondsman in the condition that he will appear in court when such appearance is
required. While under bail, such person cannot leave the country without asking permission from
the court.

The 4 kinds of bail are the ff:

a) Cash bail
b) Surety bail
c) Property bail
d) Recognizance

a) Cash bail

Bail is paid through money or cash. This is the most advisable kind of bail because a reduction of
at most 50% can be negotiated.

b) Surety bail

Bail is issued by a surety company and the accused will pay a premium to such company
depending on how much will the company ask but is usually 10% of the recommended bail.
When the accused will later be convicted or acquitted, the bail will go back to the surety
company and the accused cannot ask the return of the premium that he had paid.

c) Property bail

The property put up as bail must be a real property and covered by a certificate of title which is
free from encumbrances.

d) Recognizance

This is only applicable if the offense committed is not grave but only a minor offense. Also,
when the offender is classified as a juvenile

AMOUNT OF BAIL
It is the prosecutor who recommends the amount of bail. However, the court is not bound to
accept such recommendation. The court has the sole jurisdiction to increase or decrease such
amount of bail.

The ff. are the circumstances that have to be considered by the court in increasing or decreasing
the bail:
a) financial capacity of the accused
b) nature of the offense
c) penalty imposable
d) character and reputation of the accused
e) age and health condition of the accused
f) weight and sufficiency of the evidences
g) forfeiture of previous bail
h) the fact that the accused may have already absconded
i) the accused is a fugitive from justice before he was arrested
j) the accused is facing numerous cases

BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT OR A MATTER OF DISCRETION

Generally, all persons who are detained can apply for bail as a matter of right. However, if the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua AND the evidence of guilt is strong, then bail should not
be granted for it is not a matter of right. But in the Dela Rama case, the Supreme Court allowed
to grant bail to the accused even if the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and the evidence
of guilt is strong because the accused was already of advanced age.

If the accused believes that the evidence of guilt is not strong, he may file a Motion or Petition
for Bail in court. In such a case, the court will then conduct a hearing regarding such motion. If
the prosecution fails to present its answer regarding such motion, then the court cannot just
automatically grant the motion. It is mandated that the court should conduct a hearing to
determine the sufficiency of the motion. Otherwise, the judge may be administratively liable.

Also, a person who is detained even if no criminal case had been filed against him may apply for
bail as a matter of right.

However, there are instances when bail is only a matter of discretion. This is illustrated in the
following instances:

a) 1st instance

A case is first filed in MTC/MTCC/MCTC. In such a case, bail is a matter of right because the
offense here is not punishable by reclusion perpetua.

If the MTC/MTCC/MCTC ordered a judgment of conviction and the accused appealed to RTC,
then the accused can still ask for bail as a matter of right. The accused will ask bail from the
MTC/MTCC/MCTC and not from the RTC.
If the RTC later ordered a judgment of conviction and the accused appealed to CA, then the
accused can still ask for bail but only a matter of discretion. The accused will ask bail from the
MTC/MTCC/MCTC and not from the RTC or CA.

b) 2nd instance

A case is first filed in the RTC and the penalty imposable is lower than reclusion perpetua and
the evidence of guilt is strong. In such a case, bail is a matter of right because the offense here is
not punishable by reclusion perpetua even if the evidence of guilt is strong.

If the RTC ordered a judgment of conviction and the accused appealed to CA, then the accused
can still ask for bail but only a matter of discretion. The accused will ask bail from the RTC and
not from the CA.

c) 3rd instance

A case is first filed in the RTC and the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua and the evidence
of guilt is strong. In such a case, bail is not matter of right.

If the RTC ordered a judgment of conviction but the penalty imposed is lower than reclusion
perpetua and the accused appealed to CA, then the accused can still ask for bail but only a matter
of discretion. The accused will ask bail from the CA and not from the RTC because it is his first
time to ask for bail.

d) Negating circumstances to prohibit bail when it is a matter of discretion

In cases when bail is only a matter of discretion and not a matter of right, the bail should not be
allowed if any of the ff. negating circumstances is present:
a) accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent
b) accused previously evaded the service of his sentence
c) accused previously violated the conditions of his bail
d) accused committed the offense while he is on probation, parole, or conditional pardon
e) accused is a flight risk
f) when there is convincing evidence that the accused will commit another offense while on
bail

OTHER CASES WHEN BAIL IS ONLY A MATTER OF DISCRETION

As held in USA v. Purganan, the Supreme Court held that in extradition cases, bail is only a
matter of discretion. This is because the provision under Article III, Section 13 of the
Constitution only applies to criminal cases as exemplified when it mentions before conviction.
Extradition cases are sui generis. In the Government of Hong Kong case, the Supreme Court
held that the extraditee may be granted bail if he is able to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he is not a flight risk and that he undertakes to faithfully abide by the conditions as
may be imposed upon him by the court.
In Commendador v. De Villa, the Supreme Court held that in military cases pending before court
martials, bail is only a matter of discretion.