Right to Bail

1. San Miguel v Maceda (right to bail is a matter of right when the offense is not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment)
Complainant was arrested for illegal sale, dispensation, distribution and delivery of .50 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
punishable by prision correccional. He jumped bail.

Judge Florentino Alumbres issued a bench warrant and canceled his bail bond and fixed a new bail bond.

Complainant was arrested so the state prosecutor filed a Motion to Cancel Recommended Bail on the ground of reasonable belief
and indications pointing to the probability that accused is seriously considering flight from prosecution but the complainant filed an
Opposition to the Motion.

Respondent Judge Maceda issued an Order granting the Motion but during the hearing, respondent opted to consider
complainant’s Opposition as a motion for reconsideration and merely ordered the prosecutor to file a reply thereto.

Complainant alleged that his right to procedural due process was gravely violated when respondent issued the Order without giving
him the opportunity to comment on the same.

Respondent Judge explained that when he canceled the bail, the cancellation referred to the ₱60,000.00 and not the ₱120,000.00
bail fixed by Judge Alumbres. The Order canceling the bail does not speak of the cancellation of the ₱120,000.00 bail and the
same was reaffirmed in a subsequent Order.

Respondent Judge contends that the right of complainant to be heard in the motion to withdraw bail was never violated nor his right
to bail impaired.

WON the Order issued by respondent Judge violate the right to bail of the complainant

Section 13, Article III 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.

Section 4, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, all persons in custody shall be admitted to bail
as a matter of right.

The bail recommended by the prosecutor in the amount of ₱60,000.00 was considered withdrawn in the Order because when
respondent cancelled the recommended bail of ₱60,000.00, the same had already been forfeited as a consequence of
complainant's jumping bail.

The only recommended bail that remains subject of the Motion of the prosecutor is the increased bail in the amount of
₱120,000.00, thus, respondent Judge cancelled the recommended bail in the increased amount of ₱120,000.00.

Respondent failed to consider that what was being prayed for by the prosecutor was the cancellation of the recommended bail for
violation of R.A. No. 6425 and not that of the crime of murder.

Records show that complainant was charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 which is punishable by prision
correccional. The issuance of Order shows respondent's gross ignorance of the law as the offense charged is neither a capital
offense nor punishable by reclusion perpetua.

Complainant stayed in jail because he has lost his right to bail as a result of the patently erroneous and illegal order of respondent
Judge. Hence, respondent is liable for gross ignorance of the law for having denied complainant's right to bail in a case where bail
was a matter of right.

Complainant’s right to bail is not a mere privilege but a constitutionally guaranteed right that cannot be defeated by any order. The
intendment of Order was to deny him of his constitutional right to bail.

The existence of a high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond confers upon the court no greater discretion
than to increase the bond.

The prosecutor failed to adduce evidence that there exists a high probability of accused's jumping bail that would warrant the
cancellation of the recommended bail bond. Respondent's only recourse is to fix a higher amount of bail and not cancel the
₱120,000.00 bail fixed by Judge Alumbres.

Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice
prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause, wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.

Respondent's issuance of Order two days prior to the scheduled hearing without considering complainant's Opposition to the
Motion, effectively deprived the latter of his constitutional right to due process. Respondent's issuance of the Order before the
scheduled hearing is premature and is tantamount to misconduct, thus, the respondent Judge guilty of simple misconduct.

The term "gross" connotes something "out of all measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful.

Complainant, having failed to present positive evidence to show that respondent judge was so motivated in granting the Motion
without hearing, respondent Judge cannot be held guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
 2. Zuno v Cabebe (hearing is mandatory in any case of bail, if no petition for bail, hearing should still be
held)
Chief State Prosecutor Zuño alleged that Rey Daquep Arcangel, Victorino Gamet Malabed, William Roxas Villanueva, all police
officers, Jocelyn Malabed Manuel and Pelagio Valencia Manuel for illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs which was
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte.

Upon arraignment, all the accused, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

The prosecution filed a petition for change of venue but was denied, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration.

The accused filed a motion to dismiss invoking as ground the right of the accused to a speedy trial.

Respondent Judge Cabebe motu propio issued an Order granting bail to the accused. Respondent judge issued the Order without
the accused's application or motion for bail.

The prosecution then filed a motion for reconsideration. Respondent judge issued an Order inhibiting himself from further
proceeding with the case, realizing that what he did was patently irregular.

Complainant thus prays that respondent judge be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and be disbarred from
the practice of law.

Respondent Judge, in his Comment admitted that he issued the Order granting bail to the accused without any hearing, "the same
was premised on the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial." Respondent judge compulsorily retired.

Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez found respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.

Respondent Judge maintains that the prosecution did not object to the grant of bail to the accused, hence, he cannot be held
administratively liable for not conducting a hearing.

WON the grant of bail without a hearing is erroneous

Bail is a matter of discretion were offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

Hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion.

The grant or the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of discretion, hinges on the issue of whether or not the
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of
judicial discretion which remains with the judge.

In order for the judge to properly exercise his discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the
evidence of guilt is strong.

In cases where there is no petition for bail, a hearing should still be held.

Duties of the judge in case an application for bail is filed:

1. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or
require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure);

2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court
to exercise its sound discretion (Section 7 and 8, id.);

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;

4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Section 19, id.);
otherwise, the petition should be denied.

After the hearing, the court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence of the prosecution
and based thereon, the judge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong
enough to indicate the guilt of the accused.

Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. – At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is in custody
for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the
burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered
automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional
examination unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.

Sec. 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. – In the application for bail under section 8 of this Rule, the court must give
reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his recommendation.

Respondent judge granted bail to the accused without conducting a hearing, in violation of Sections 8 and 18, Rule 114 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Respondent judge did not conduct a hearing before he granted bail to the accused, thus depriving the prosecution of an opportunity
to interpose objections to the grant of bail.

Respondent judge cannot seek refuge on the alleged absence of objection on the part of the prosecution to the grant of bail to the
accused.
A judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order he renders. For liability to attach for
ignorance of the law, the assailed order of a judge must not only be erroneous; more important, it must be motivated by
bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motive.

Complainant, having failed to present positive evidence to show that respondent judge was so motivated in granting bail without
hearing, cannot be held guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Respondent judge is guilty of violation of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on the grant of bail on which the
administrative offense is considered a less serious charge, punishable under Section 9(4) and Section 11(B-2), Rule 140 of the
same Rules.

3. Cortes v Catral (searching questions must be conducted by the Judge before granting or denying a
bail)
Flaviano Cortes filed a sworn letter complaint against Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gross
Ignorance of the Law, alleging that respondent judge granted bail in murder cases without hearing.

Respondent judge in his comment, clarified that for murder pending in Branch 7 of the RTC where he is then designated as
presiding judge, stresses that the provincial prosecutor recommended P200,000.00 as bail bond for each of the accused.

Concerning the illegal possesion of firearm against Barangay Captain Rodolfo Castaneda, the bail bond recommended by the
prosecutor was P180,000.00. Accused, through counsel, filed a motion for reduction of the bail bond to P30,000.00.

Concerning a homicide case against Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivero, respondent judge says that the bail bond of P14,800.00
was recommended by the acting Officer-In-Charge (OIC) as contained in his manifestation accompanying the information.

Respondent judge noted that the complaining witnesses never appeared despite the fact that the case had been set for hearing
several times.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the complaint saying that there is nothing in the allegations of
the complainant that would warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against respondent judge, complainant failed to show
any indication that bad faith motivated the actuation of the respondent in granting and reducing the amount of bail of the accused in
some of the criminal cases that were assigned on him and the increase or reduction of bail rests in the sound discretion of the court
depending upon the particular circumstances of the case.

WON the judge granting the bail should act based solely on the recommendation of the prosecutor

Bail is the security required by the court and given by the accused to ensure that the accused appears before the proper
court at the scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought against him or her.

Bail is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt,
and to enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to conviction.

Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or
fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to
take into account a number of factors, such as the applicant's character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or
whether he is a fugitive from justice.

Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states: "No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable
by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the
stage of the criminal action."

When a person is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is a matter
of discretion. Consequently, when the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court,
not only to take into account the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, but primarily to
determine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or lack of it, against the accused.

The judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave
the application of bail to the sound discretion of the court. A hearing is also required if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail.

It is mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching questions from which it may infer the strength of the
evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused even if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to
interpose an objection to the motion for bail.

Respondent judge, in two instances, granted bail to an accused charged with murder, without having conducted any hearing as to
whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.

The court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution, otherwise the
order granting or denying bail may be invalidated because the summary of the evidence for the prosecution which
contains the judge's evaluation of the evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both the
prosecution and the defense.

In the case of People v. Ahmed Duerme y Paypon, at el., the provincial prosecutor recommended the sum of P200,000.00 as bail
bond for each accused, however, records do not reveal whether a hearing was actually conducted on the application for bail. The
Order granting the reduced bail bond did not contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution.
In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, the case was elevated to the Regional Trial Court. The accused through counsel filed
a petition for bail. In the hearing of the petition to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused was strong,
the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and recommended the sum of P200,000.00 instead.

Respondent judge issued an order granting bail to the accused in the sum of P200,000.00. The public prosecutor manifested that
he had no objection to the sum of P50,000.00 as bail for the accused. Respondent judge, then educed the bail bond from
P200,000.00 to P50,000.00 as recommended by the prosecutor, however, the Order granting the bail of P200,000.00, as well as
the reduced bail bond of P50,000.00, did not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Respondent judge is not bound by the recommendation of the prosecutor and the affidavits and sworn statements of the witnesses
are mere hearsay statements which could hardly be the basis for determining whether or not the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong.

Respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused without having
conducted the requisite hearing.