Lectures

General PrinciplesPinote vs. Ayco, 477 SCRA 409The trial prosecutor may, at any time, in the

exercise of his discretion, take over from the private prosecutor the actual conduct of the trial.

Torres vs. Aguinaldo 461 SCRA 599Baltazar vs. Pantig G.R. No. 149111, Aug. 9,

2005

Once a case has already been filed in court, a trial prosecutor may be compelled to prosecute the case notwithstanding his personal convictions or opinions. He should present the case to the best of his ability and let the court decide the merits of the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties.

Effect of institution of criminal actionIt interrupts the running of the prescriptive

periods of violations of special laws or offenses other than those penalized by the RPC

Zaldivia vs. Reyes G.R. No. L-102342, July 3, 1992

The filing of complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation starts the prosecution process.

Sec. 412 of RA 7160, Local Government Code of 1990

REMEDIES OF OFFENDED PARTY IF NPS REFUSES TO FILE INFOFile an action for mandamus, in case of grave

abuse of discretionLodge a new complaint before court having

jurisdiction over offense where there is no double jeopardy

Take up matter with Secretary of JusticeInstitute admin charges against prosecutorFile criminal action against prosecFile civil action for damagesAsk for a special prosecutor

May injunction issue to restrain criminal prosecution?NO - public interest requires that criminal

acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of the society. (Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 103276, April 14, 1996).

EXCEPTHernandez vs. Albano, GR No. L-19272

January 25, 1967When there is a prejudicial question which is

subjudice;Planas vs. Gil, GR No. L-46440, Jan. 18, 1939Lopez vs. City Judge, GR No. L-25795, Oct.

29, 1966When it is a case of persecution rather thatn

prosecution

EXCEPTWhen the charges are manifestly false and

motivated by vengeanceSalonga vs. Pano, GR No. L-59524, Feb. 18,

1985Brocka vs. Enrile, GR No. 69863-65, Dec. 10,

1990Young vs. Rafferty, GR No. L-10951, Feb. 14,

1916

COMPLAINT (filed before NPS)Referral letter from the law enforcement

agencyAffidavit of the offended partyLetter (sworn or not) from the offended partyReferral letter from a committee of the

Senate of House of Rep. or any gov’t agenciesFormal complaint

POLICY ON FORMSAs a general rule, a complaint filed with the

prosecutor must be sworn by the complainant, to discourage harassment charges.

However, referral letter-complaints from law enforcement agencies or institutions need not be sworn.

People vs. Sangil 4 SCRA 722

PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO FILEThe offended partyAny person or persons authorized by law to

file a complaintAny law enforcement officer charged with the

enforcement of the law violatedSalazar vs. Pp G.R. No. 149472, Oct. 15,

2002Perez vs. Monetary Board 20 SCRA 592

Under the Rule on Summary ProcedureA complaint may be directly filed in the MTC,

provided that in Metro Manila and chartered cities, the criminal action may only be commenced by the filing of the information, which means, only by the prosecutor, except when the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio.

Prosecution in the RTC is always commenced by information.

An error in the name of the accused is not reversible as long as his identity is sufficiently established. This defect is curable at any stage of the proceedings as insertion of the real name of accused is merely a matter of form. (Pp vs. Padica, GR No. 102645, April 7, 1993).

The qualifying and aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated even if proved unless alleged in the information. (Pp vs. Perreras, GR No. 139622, 31 July 2001).

It is not the designation of the offense that is controlling, the facts alleged therein and not its title determine the nature of crime. (Pp vs. Magdowa, GR No. L-48457, Dec. 13, 1941).

The accused may be convicted of a crime more serious than that named in the title or preliminary part if such crime is covered by the facts alleged in the body of the information and its commission is established by evidence. (buhat vs. CA, GR No. 119601, Dec. 17, 1996.

People v. Mabuyo, 63 SCRA 532 (1975) -Unless place of commission is an essential element of the crime, the accused may be convicted of a crime committed in a place other than the place alleged in the information, as long as such other place is still within the jurisdiction of the court. 

Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991)

Should there be duplicity of offense in the information, the accused must move for the quashal of the same BEFORE arraignment. Otherwise, he is deemed to have waived the objection and may be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged and proved during the trial.

Splitting of case is NOT allowed

AmendmentsKINDS - A. before accused enters his plea

as to anything which does not downgrade the charge or exclude any accused – without leave of court

downgrade the charge or excludes an accused - upon motion by the prosecutor - with notice to the offended party - with leave of court

Amendments

B. after arraignment but before judgment only as to form – with leave of court and when it

can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

wrong offense charged (amendment by substitution)

Note: the court shall dismiss the original case upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense, provided the accused would not be placed in double jeopardy.

Except: when a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the crime charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher crime; but there is a need to arraign the accused.

Amendment is only in FORM -

Where it neither affects nor alters the nature of the offense charged; or

Where the change does not deprive the accused of a fair opportunity to present his defense; or

Where it does not involve a change in the basic theory of the prosecution.

Amendment is in substance-

Almeda vs. Villaluz, GR No. L-31665, August 6, 1975 – where it covers matters involving the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.

Requisites for substitution of a defective informationIt involves a substantial change from the

original charge;The substitution must be with leave of court

as the original info is to be dismissedAnother preliminary investigation must be

conducted and the accused to plead anewSubstitution presupposes that the new

information involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge

Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 695 – where second information involves the same offense, or an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first information, an amendment of the info is sufficient; otherwise, where the new info charges an offense which is distinct and different from that initially, a substitution is in order.

Sec. 19, R. 119 – when it becomes manifest at anytime before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information.

In criminal procedure, venue is jurisdictional. In civil procedure, venue is procedural and may be waived.

Larranaga vs. CA, 287 SCRA 581 – a petition for a change of venue of the PI should be addressed to the Secretary of Justice who has control and supervision over the conduct of PI which is a function of the Executive Department and not the Judiciary.

Prosecution of Civil ActionsCriminal action = civil action (deemed

instituted)Except -When offended party waives the civil actionWhen offended party reserves his right to

institute separate civil actionWhen offended party institutes a civil action

prior to the criminal action

Exception to the Exceptions No reservation to file a separate civil action for

-violations of BP 22 shall be allowed. The

criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action

cases before the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 4, RA 8249) 

The same is intended to prevent double recovery. (Yakult Phils. Vs. CA, GR No. 91856, Oct. 5, 1990)

Only the civil liability arising from the crime charged (cause of action arising from delict) as a felony is now deemed instituted.

Counterclaims, cross-claims, third party complaints are no longer allowed in a criminal proceeding. Any claim which could have the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.

Compromise on civil aspectThe offended party may compromise the civil

aspect of the crime, provided that it must be entered before or during the litigation, and not after final judgment. A compromise on the civil aspect is valid even if it turns out to be unsatisfactorily either to one or both of the parties.

Primacy of criminal actionAfter criminal action is filed, civil action not

reserved cannot be instituted until final judgmentIf civil action is instituted before criminal action,

the pending civil action shall be suspended until final judgment

Except –-independent civil actions-prejudicial questions-consolidation-civil action is not intended to enforce civil

liability arising from offense

Where the criminal case was dismissed before trial because offended party executed an affidavit of desistance, the civil action thereof is similarly dismissed.

Prejudicial questionIs one which arises in a case, the resolution

of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal

PQ may be raised during the PI or in court before the prosecution rests its case

Suspension of the criminal case due to a PQ is only a procedural matter, and is subject to a waiver by virtue of prior acts of the accused

There is no PQ where one is administrative and the other is civil

A PQ is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused

The petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before prosecution rests

ElementsThe civil action must be instituted PRIOR to

criminal actionCivil action involves an issue similar or

intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action

The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (RULE 112) - an inquiry or proceeding to determine

whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. 

Gen. Rule: Preliminary investigation is required

Exceptions:Penalty is at most 4 years, 2 monthswhen accused was lawfully arrested without

a warrant (Sec. 7, Rule 112) - INQUEST

PurposesTo determine if a crime has been committed

(Mercado vs. CA, GR No. 109036, July 5, 1995)To protect accused from the inconvenience of

defending himself unnecessarily when probability of his guilt can be ascertained summarily

To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and expensive pubic trial (Rodis vs Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 71404-09 Oct. 26, 1988)

To protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials (Tandoc vs. Resultan, GR No. L-69210, July 5, 1989.

PI: Personal statutory rightThe right to p.i. is a personal right covered by

statute and may be waived expressly or by implication. It is not merely procedural but a substantive right included in the due process law. (Go vs. CA, GR No. 101837, Feb. 11, 1992)

P.I. deemed waived:Failure to claim it before accused pleadedHis silenceFailure to request it within 5 days from the

time he learns of the filing of complaint or information (in inquest cases)

Probable causeParedes vs. Sandiganbayan , GR No. 108251, Jan.

31, 1996 – the term does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that an act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.

Webb vs. De Leon (247 SCRA 652)

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.

No fixed formula for p.c.Fernando vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 96182,

Aug. 19, 1992 – there is no general formula or fixed rue for the determination of probable cause, since the same must be decided in light of conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the investigating prosecutor conducting the investigation. However, such a finding should not disregard the facts before the investigating prosecutor nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason.

Sound discretion of prosecutorThe institution of a criminal action depends

upon the sound discretion of the prosecutor. He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence, in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Sound discretion of prosecutorVenus vs. Desierto, 198 SCRA 196 – the

approach of the courts to the quashing of criminal charges necessarily differs from the way a prosecutor would handle exactly the same question – a court faced with a 50/50 proposition of guilt or innocence always decides in favor of innocence, while a prosecutor, conscious that he represents the offended party, may decide to eave the problem to the discretion of the court.

Procedure of p.i.Filing of complaint accompanied by the

affidavits and supporting documents which must be executed underoath

Within 10 days after the filing, the investigating officer shall either dismiss or issue subpoena

If subpoena is issued, respondent shall submit counter-affidavit within 10 days from receipt

Clarificatory hearing (optional), within 10 days where issues are joined

Resolution

Respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of counter-affidavit. The respondent has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant may present.

Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review

Determination of investigating prosecutor

Determination of investigating prosecutor is RECOMMENDATORY, which may be reversed or modified

Where the recommendation is dismissal but his findings is reversed on the ground that a probable cause exists, the city/provincial prosecutor himself may file or direct another assistant to file the corresponding information, without need of another preliminary investigation.

INQUEST- is an informal and summary investigation

conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or not said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.

COMMENCEMENTUpon receipt of inquest prosecutor of the

following documents:Affidavit of arrestInvestigation reportSworn statements of complainants or

witnessesOther supporting evidence gathered by police

in the course of investigation

Determination of the arrestThe inquest prosecutor shall first determine

if the arrest of the detained person was made in accordance with sec. 5 R. 113 which provide that arrests without a warrant may be effected.

For this purpose, the inquest prosecutor may summarily examine the arresting officers on the circumstances surrounding the arrest or apprehension of the detained person.

Probable cause in inquestPeople vs. Tudtud, GR No. 144037, Sept. 26,

2003 – means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion that the person to be arrested is about to commit or is attempting to commit a crime, or is in the act of committing a crime, or has committed a crime, either in the presence or without the presence of the arresting officer.

Where arrest of detained person not properly effectedRecommend release of arrested personPrepare a resolution indicating the reasons

for action taken; andForward to the prosecutor

general/city/provincial prosecutor together with record of case

If release is approved but evidence warrants the conduct of p.i.Serve the order of rlease on l.e.o. having

custodyDirect said officer to serve to detainee

subpoena or notice of p.i., together with copies of complaint, affidavits and other supporting evidence

Where arrest was properly effectedDetainee shall be asked if he desires to avail

of p.i., and if he does, with assistance of counsel, shall execute a waiver of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code

The p.i. may be conducted by the inquest prosecutor or by any other prosecutor to whom the case may be assigned, which investigation shall be terminated within 15 days from its inception

Inquest proper

Where detainee does not opt for p.i. or otherwise refuses to execute a waiver, the inquest prosecutor shall proceed with the conduct of inquest, notwithstanding the absence of counsel, by examining the sworn statements of complainant and witnesses

If there exists probable cause, prepare resolution with information.

If inquest falls on RSP, where no bail is required, inquest prosecutor shall recommend release of arrested person and prepare information for filing.

Inquest proper

If no probable cause, recommend release of detainee and prepare resolution indicating the reasons for the action taken

Inquest must be terminated within the period prescribed under Art. 125 of the RPC, however –

the means of communicationHour of arrestOther circumstances, i.e. availability of clerk of

court, availability of judge, the fact that govt offices close at 5 pm

Important matters -Pp vs. Figueroa 27 SCRA 1239 – after filing of

the info in court without p.i., the accused, may, within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a p.i. with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense

The conduct of an inquest should never be initiated in the absence of an affidavit of arrest

Rule 113 - ArrestIs the taking of a person into custody in order

that he may be bound to answer for the commission of a crime;

Since arrest involves a curtailment of a basic natural right, it is generally necessary that a warrant of arrest for the seizure of an individual be issued by the proper authority.

Protected by the Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2, Bill of Rights

Pp vs. Joson 46 Phil 381 – when accused voluntarily appears after a complaint in a criminal action is filed against him, and gives bond for his appearance at any time he may be called, no arrest is necessary. Voluntary appearance relieves the necessity for an actual arrest.

Modes of arrestArrest by virtue of a warrantArrest without a warrant under exceptional

circumstances as may be provided by statute (Rule 113, sec. 5)

Warrant of arrestIssued by a judge upon a probable cause

determined by him, after examining under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing a person to be seized.

It is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be subjected to a greater restraint that is necessary for his detention. (R.113, s. 2)

Essential requisites of a valid warranta) Issued upon probable cause b) Determined personally by the judgec) After evaluation of prosecutor’s report and the

evidence adduced during the preliminary investigation (Soliven vs. Makasiar, GR No. L-82585, Nov. 14, 1988)

d) The warrant must particularly describe the person to be arrested

e) In connection with a specific offense or crimeN.B. A warrant of arrest has no expiry date. It remains

valid until arrest is effected or warrant is lifted. (Manangan vs. CFI, GR No. 82760, Aug. 30, 1990) and (Pp vs. Givera, GR No. 132159, Jan. 18, 2001)

Corollary to the principle that the judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so is the rule that he should not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold an accuse for trial, on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was insufficient. (PP vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 475)

Remedy for warrants improperly issued - Petition to quash (Alimpoos vs. CA, GR No. L-

27331, July 30, 1981)Posting of bail does not bar one from questioning

illegal arrest (sec. 26, R. 114)

When warrant of arrest not necessary -A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the

accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court in accordance with par. (b) of Rule Rule 112, sec. 6, or if the information was filed under sec. 7, of same Rule, or if offense penalized by fine only.

Execution of warrantThe head of office to whom the warrant of

arrest was delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be executed within 10 days from receipt. Within 10 days after the expiration period, the officer to whom it was assigned shall make a report to the judge who issued the warrant. In case of failure to execute the warrant, he shall state the reason therefor.

Time of making arrestMay be made on any day at any time if the

day or night; even on a Sunday. This is justified by the necessity of preserving the public peace.

May be made anywhere, even on a private property or in a house. This is applicable both where the arrest is under a warrant and valid warrantless arrest.

Citizen’s arrest refers to arrest effected by a private person.

Officer making the arrest may summon assistance.

Officer has the right to break into building or enclosure

Warrantless Arrest (Rule 113, sec. 5)When in his PRESENCE, the person to be arrested

has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;

A prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement (see also sec. 13). (

Warrantless Arrest (Rule 113, sec. 5)Where a person who has been lawfully arrested

escapes or is rescued ;By the bondsman for the purpose of surrendering

the accusedWhere the accused attempts to leave without

permission of the court

In Flagranti Delicto ArrestsThe accused is apprehended at the very

moment he is committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.

Pp vs. Evaristo, GR No. 93828, Dec. 11, 1992NB:Personal knowledge must be based upon

“probable cause” which means “an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.”

Posadas vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 131492, Sept. 29, 2000

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts.

A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officer’s making the arrest.

Elements:The person to be arrested must execute an overt

act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;

Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

PRESENCE does not only require that the arresting person sees the offense, but also when he “hears the disturbance created thereby AND proceeds at once to the scene.”

The behavior or conduct of the person to be arrested must be clearly indicative of a criminal act. If there is no outward indication at all that calls for an arrest, the suspect cannot be validly apprehended under par. (a), sec. 5, Rule 113, notwithstanding a tip from an informant that he would at the time be undertaking a felonious enterprise. (PP vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 721)

Buy-bust operationsPp. vs. Juatan, GR No. 1043376, Aug. 20, 1996A form of entrapment which has been

repeatedly accepted to be valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The violator is caught in flagrate delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.

Hot Pursuit ArrestsOffense have been committed. Pp vs. Ramos,

GR No. 85401-02, June 7, 1990 - the rule now is the indubitable existence of a crime is not necessary to justify a warrantless arrest.

Offense JUST been committed. Go vs. CA, GR No. 101837, Feb. 11, 1992 – interval between the actual commission of the crime and the arvival of the arresting officer must be brief.

Probable cause based on personal knowledge.

While the law enforcers may not actually witness the execution of acts constituting the offense, they must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after the commission. They should know for a fact that a crime was committed. And they must also perceive acts exhibited by the person to be arrested, indicating that he perpetrated the crime. Mere intelligence information will not suffice.

Probable cause means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts i.e. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. (PP vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 675) A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.

Plain View DoctrineRequisites:1. The law enforcement officer in search of the

evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;

2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;

It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

Rules on illegality of arrestAn accused who enters his plea of NOT guilty

and participates in the trial waives the illegality of the arrest. PP vs. Macam, GR Nos. L-91011-12, Nov. 24, 1994 – objection to the illegality must be raised before arraignment, otherwise it is deemed waived, as the accused has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Illegality of warrantless arrest may be cured by filing an information in court and the subsequent issuance by the judge of a warrant of arrest.

Rules on illegality of arrestOnce a person has been duly charged in

court, he may no longer question his detention by petition for habeas corpus; his remedy is to quash the information and/or the warrant of arrest.

BAILIs 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 specified by the Rules. It may be corporate surety, property, cash deposit or recognizance.

NO PERSON UNDER DETENTION BY LEGAL PROCESS SHALL BE RELEASED OR TRANSFERRED EXCEPT UPON ORDER OF THE COURT OR WHEN HE IS ADMITTED TO BAIL. (Rule 114, sec. 3)

PurposesTo relieve an accused for the rigors of

imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial. (Almeda vs. Villaluz, GR No. L-31665, Aug. 6, 1975).

To honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

To enable him to prepare his defense without being subjected to punishment prior to conviction.

Bail is available only to persons in custody of the law. A person is in the custody of law when he has been either arrested or otherwise deprived of his freedom or when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities. (Dinapol vs. Baldado, AM No. 92-898, Aug. 5, 1993).

All persons except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties or be released on recognizance. The right to bail shall bot be impaired when when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. (Art. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)

All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right before conviction of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. After conviction, bail is discretionary. If penalty exceeds 6 years, bail shall be denied if accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent, or has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, committed the offense while on probation, parole or conditional pardon, probability of flight, or undue risk he may commit another crime.

Forms of bailCorporate suretyProperty bondCash bond Recognizance

BAIL WHEN NOT REQUIREDWhen a person has been in custody for a

period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment punishable, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial of the case. If the maximum penalty is destierro, accused shall be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment.

Conditions of the bailUndertaking shall be effective upon approval

and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages until promulgation of judgment of the RTC irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;

The accused shall appear before the proper courts whenever so required;

The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to present thereat. Trial may proceed in absentia.

If the accused presents his notice of appeal, the trial court will order the accused to be taken into custody in the absence of a new bail bond on appeal duly approved by the court. If the accused does not appeal, the bondsman must produce the accused on the 15th day from promulgation of sentence for service of his sentence.

No additional conditions can be imposed.

Almeda vs. Villaluz – the court however may impose other conditions in granting bail where the likelihood of the accused jumping bail or committing other harm to citizenry is feared.

Bandoy vs. Judge of CFI GR No. L-5200, March 11, 1909 –the court however may not impose additional obligations upon the bondsman than those provided by law. The obligation imposed upon the bondsmen cannot be greater nor of a different character than those imposed upon the accused.

Gimenez vs. Nazareno GR No. L-37933, April 15, 1988 -A detention prisoner who escaped waives his right to cross-examination.

By filing a fake bail bond, an appellant is deemed to have escaped from confinement during the pendency of his appeal, his appeal should be dismissed.

Manotoc Sr. vs. CA, GR No. L-63409 May 30, 1986 – bail in effect operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel.

Guidelines for amount of bailFinancial ability of the accused to give bailNature and circumstances of the offensePenalty of the offense chargedCharacter and reputation of accusedAge and health of accusedWeight of evidence against accusedProbability of accused appearing at trialForfeiture of other bailFact that accused was a fugitivePendency of other cases

A warrant of arrest without recommendation for bail is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to bail unless the accused is charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher and the evidence of guilt is strong. (Parada vs. Veneracio, AM No. RTJ-96-1353);

In all instances, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor, or at least he must be asked for his recommendation (Chin vs. Judge Gustilo, AM No. RTJ-94-1243, Aug. 11, 1995).

Forfeiture of bailWithin 30 days from the failure of accused to

appear in person as required the bondmen must:

Produce the body of accused or give reason for his non-production;

Explain why the accused did not appear when required

Failing in these requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsman, jointly and severally, for the amount of bail.

Cancellation of bailUpon application of the bondsmen with due

notice to the prosecutor, upon surrender of accused or proof of his death;

Upon acquittalUpon dismissal of the caseExecution of judgment

No bail shall be granted after judgment, if the case has become final, even if continued confinement of accused would be detrimental or dangerous to his health. The remedy would be to submit him to medical treatment or hospitalization.

Except – when he applies for probation before commencing to serve sentence, the application for probation must be filed within the period of perfecting an appeal. Such application operates as a waiver of the right to appeal.

Rights of the accused (Rule 115)Mejia vs. Pamaran, GR No. L-57469, April 15,

1988 –elements of criminal due processAccused must have been heard in court of

competent jurisdiction Proceeded against under the orderly process

of lawHas been given notice and opportunity to be

heardJudgment was awarded within the authority

of a constitutional law

Rights of accused at the trialto be presumed innocent until the contrary is

proved beyond reasonable doubt to be informed of the nature and cause of the

accusation against himto be present and defend in person and by

counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment