Bail

1. Accused was charged with murder. At the hearing of his application for bail, the prosecution manifested
that it was ready to present evidence to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. The defense, however, contended
that the report and documents/ paper in support of the prosecutor’s certification of probable cause in the information
is sufficient to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong, thereby dispensing with the presentation of the
prosecution’s evidence.
As judge, how would you resolve the contention of the defense? Explain. (1996, #12)

Answer:
I would overrule the contention of the defense because the prosecution has the right to present
evidence to prove that evidence of guilt is strong. A hearing is indispensable.

2. a) May bail be granted even if what is charged is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong?
Explain.

Answer:
Although bail is not a matter of right when the accused is charged with a capital offense and the
evidence of guilt is strong, there are rulings that in exceptional cases, the court has discretion to grant bail
on such cases.

b) Boyet was born on 6 January 1979. On 15 February 1995 he was arrested on a charge of raping on 14
February 1995 his first cousin Lorna, a 13-year old girl. While the prosecution recommended no bail for Boyet since
the evidence against him was strong, Boyet nevertheless applied for bail.
Should Boyet be granted bail? Explain. (1995, #12)

Answer:
Yes, because a privileged mitigating circumstance will be considered in determining whether an
offense is bailable or not.

3. Ana is the lone eyewitness to the brutal murder of Bruno allegedly committed by accused Carlo. She
deliberately refuses to appear on the scheduled dates for the taking of her testimony for fear of reprisal from Carlo’s
die-hard followers.
a) May Ana be ordered to post bail?

Answer:
Yes. Ana may be ordered to post bail. When the court is satisfied, upon proof of oath, that a
material witness will not testify when required, it may upon motion of either party order the witness to
post bail in such sum as may be deemed proper.

b) May the court motu proprio order her to post bail?

Answer:
No. The rules require that the order to post bail is upon motion of either party.

c) How shall Ana be proceeded against if she refuses to give bail?

Answer:
If Ana refuses to post bail, the court shall commit her to prison until she complies or is legally
discharged after her testimony has been taken.

d) What protection may Ana avail if in case she decides to testify at the trial? (1994, #12)

Answer:
In case Ana decides to testify, she may avail of the benefits under the Witness Protection Act.
 2

4. Accused was charged with the crime of kidnapping with murder. The information recommended no bail,
the charge being a capital offense which is non-bailable.
After entering a plea of not guilty, accused filed an application for bail. The application was opposed by the
prosecution
While the prosecution was still presenting evidence in support of its opposition to the application for bail,
the trial judge issued an order fixing bail of P100,000.00 for the provisional liberty of accused. The order reads.
“After due consideration of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented
by the prosecution, this Court finds reasonable ground to believe that no strong
evidence exists against accused.
WHEREFORE, the application for bail is granted. Accused is granted bail, which
is fixed P100,000.00, for his provisional liberty.”
Did the trial judge act correctly? Why? (1993, #9)

Answer:
No, because since the accused was charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or
higher, he is not entitled to bail as a matter of right when evidence of guilt is strong. It was premature for
the court to grant bail while the prosecution was still presenting evidence in support of its opposition to
the application for bail. The prosecution had the right to present all evidence to show the guilt of the
accused before the court resolved the motion for bail.

5. Claudio Ty was charges with murder in an information filed with the Regional Trial Court in
Dumaguete City. Through counsel, he filed an application for bail. Without conducting a hearing on said
application and without giving the prosecution an opportunity to comment thereon, the judge granted bail to Ty
after examining the complaint and the affidavit attached to the bail application which, in the evaluation of the judge,
tend to show that the evidence of guilt is not strong. The prosecution moved for reconsideration of the order
granting bail, contending that the procedure followed by the judge was irregular.
a) Was the procedure followed by the judge in granting bail correct?

Answer:
No, because the prosecution should have been given an opportunity to comment on the
application and to present strong evidence of guilt.

b) If the judge denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, what remedy or remedies ay the
prosecution pursue if it wishes to assail the order before the appellate court?

Answer:
The prosecution may file a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA or the SC in order
to nullify the order of the RTC and to compel it to hold a hearing. It may also ask for a writ of preliminary
injunction against the order granting bail.

c) Supposing that Ty after trial, was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and
he appealed to the Supreme Court, is he entitled to bail during the pendency of such appeal?

Answer:
No. Ty is not entitled to bail as a matter of right because the evidence of his guilt is so strong that
it resulted in his conviction by the trial court. However, on exceptional grounds, he may be granted bail
on appeal at the discretion of the court.

d) Supposing that Ty was convicted of the lesser offense of homicide and was sentenced to a penalty, the
maximum of which is within the range of reclusion temporal, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals, is he entitle
to bail during the pendency of such appeal? (1991, #2)

Answer:
No, he is not entitled to bail as a matter of right, because he may on appeal be found guilty of
murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
 3

7. a) Abraham was charged with homicide in the RTC of Manila, Branch 10. The trial judge issued the
corresponding warrant of arrest and fixed the bail at P 30,000. Before Abraham could be arrested, he filed the fixed
bail with the MeTC of Manila, Branch 3, and the judge thereof approved the same. Was the approval of the bail
irregular? Is the bail invalid? Explain your answers.

Answer:
No, because the bail should have been filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 10, where the case
was pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same
court in Manila. The MeTC of Manila had no authority to approve the bail.

b) Florentino was charged with bigamy in the RTC of Manila, Branch 15. The trial judge issued the
corresponding warrant of arrest and fixed the bail at P 12,000. Subsequently, Florentino was arrested in San
Fernando, Pampanga, and detained in the municipal jail of the said town. He requested the judge of the MTC of San
Fernando, Pampanga, to order his release on a reduced bail . The MTC judge agreed to reduce the amount of the bail
to P 1,000 provided that the same be posted in cash, which the accused did. Was the reduction of the bail proper?
Explain.(1989, #13)

Answer:
No, because the MTC Judge of San Fernando, Pampanga had no authority to approve the bail,
much less to reduce the amount thereof even if posted in cash. Since Florentino was arrested in San
Fernando Pampanga, he should have filed the bail with any RTC of said place, and only if there was no
judge thereof available could he have filed it with the MTC Judge of San Fernando, Pampanga.

8. In an Information charging them of Murder, policemen A, B and C were convicted of Homicide. A

appealed from the decision but B and C did not. B started serving his sentence but C escaped and is at large. In the
CA, A applied for bail but was denied. Finally, the CA rendered a decision acquitting A on the ground that the
evidence pointed to the NPA as the killers of the victim.
1. Was the CA’s denial of A’s application for bail proper?

Answer:
Yes, the CA properly denied A’s application for bail. The court had the discretion to do so.
Although A was convicted of homicide only, since he was charged with a capital offense, on appeal, he
could be convicted of the capital offense.

2. Can B and C be benefited by the decision of the CA?(1998, #13)

Answer:
B, who did not appeal, can be benefited by the decision of the CA which is favorable and
applicable to him.
The benefit will also apply to C even if his appeal is dismissed because of his escape.