“To refuse him bail is to treat him as a person who has committed the most serious crime known to law.” US vs. Go-Sioco[1]
The rights protected by the bill of rights are referred to as those fundamental rights that inhere in the great and essential principle of liberty and free government.[2] No less than the Constitution cherishes and protects every right of an individual which, among others, includes the right to bail. The right to bail is a fundamental right of an accused, which cannot be withhold or divested by any judicial officer, who grants the same, without any legal basis.
Although, nothing in the constitutional provisions, with respect to right to bail, is vague as to call for any legal interpretation or construction, nevertheless, an in depth analysis must be made to shed light on when is bail a matter of right or discretion.
A right is a legally enforceable claim[3] or the power or privilege given to one person and as a rule demandable of another.[4] However, rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.[5] The right to bail is a constitutional right which can be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver must not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.[6]
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or by a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court.[7] The purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial.[8] The right to bail is recognized under Section 13 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, promulgated by the Supreme Court by virtue of their rule-making power under Section 5 (5) Article VIII of the Constitution.
As provided for by the fundamental law of the land, all persons charged with an offense shall, before conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right.[9] It admits an exception, when a person is charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua and when evidence of guilt is strong, the right to bail shall be denied. The grant or denial of an application for bail is dependent on whether the evidence of guilt is strong which the lower court should determine in a hearing called for the purpose.[10]
Corollary with such right, it may not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. It must be noted that the President, in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it, may, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the entire Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.[11] The suspension of the privilege of the writ or the declaration of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts.[12] Thus, the right to bail being a constitutional right which is only available in civil courts can be invoked, even in times of political unrest caused by invasion or rebellion.
The accused, likewise, enjoys the right against the imposition of excessive bail.[13] Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive. If there were no such prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless.[14] When the bail imposed against the accused is unreasonable, iniquitous, exorbitant, disproportionate and fanatical as to shock the moral conscience, it is deemed as excessive.
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure declares, specifically Rule 114 Sec. 4, when is bail a matter of right. It provides that all persons in custody shall be admitted bail as a matter of right, before or after convictions by the Municipal Trial Courts, and before conviction by the Regional Trial Courts of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
Custody of law is required before the court can act upon the application of bail.[15] As a rule, an accused cannot avail the right to bail unless his custody is acquired by the court, either by his arrest or his voluntary surrender. Moreover, any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held.[16] It is not necessary that the accused should wait until a formal complaint or information is filed against him. From the moment he is placed under arrest, detention or restraint by officers of law, he may avail of his right to bail.[17]
Bail becomes discretionary upon conviction of the trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment but the penalty imposed exceeds 6 years but not more than 20 years.[18] Conversely, if the penalty imposed does not exceed 6 years, bail is a matter of right. It must be stressed that, when the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment and when evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied, as it is not a matter of right or discretion.[19] It only becomes a matter of discretion when the evidence of guilt is not strong.
The right to bail is a manifestation that the state allows an accused, no matter how evil his appearance may be, to enjoy his liberty and the right against restraint from movement, although provisional in character.
[1] 12 Phil 490
[2] The 1987 Philippine Constitution Annotated by Nolledo, p. 17
[3] Legal dictionary, National bookstore, p. 179
[4] Black’s Law dictionary p. 1158
[5] Art. 6 New Civil Code
[6] People vs. Donato 198 SCRA 131
[7] Rule 114 Sec.1
[8] People vs. Donato supra
[9] Section 13 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
[10] People vs. Cabral 303 SCRA 361
[11] Section 18 (1) Article VII, Philippine Constitution
[12] Section 18 (4) supra
[13] Section 13 Article III
[14] De la Camara vs. Enage 41 SCRA 3
[15] Miranda vs. Tuliao 486 SCRA 377
[16] Section 17 (6) Rule 114 Revised Rules of Court
[17] Herras Teehankee vs.Rovira15 Phil. 634
[18] Sec. 5 (Rule 114), Revised Ruiles of Court, Remedial Law, Vol. IV 2007 Ed. P. 714 by Justice Oscar Herrera
[19] Supra
No comments:
Post a Comment