112 – 115

Preliminary Investigation

We already know that PI is required when the offense charged is punishable with imprisonment of at
least 4 years 2 months and 1 day.

Based on this we know that all offenses cognizable by RTC and some offenses cognizable by MTC require
PI.

We have learned that the proper officers who are authorize to conduct PI are:

1. The Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants

2. The National and regional state prosecutors
3. Other officers authorize by law such as:
- The legal officers of the Comelec in election offenses.
- The ombudsman in offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
- The proper officers of the presidential commission on Good Governement

We know offenses that do not require PI, Because they are punishable of imprisonment of less than 4
years 2 months and 1 day are instituted either by filing the complaint with the prosecutors office or
directly with the MTC.

If the complaint is filed with the prosecutors office it shall make sure that the requirements of Section 3
(a) of rule 112 are complied with and having done so prepare and file the information with the MTC.

If the complaint is filed directly with the MTC. It shall also enforce the requirement of Section 3 (a) of
rule 112 and then proceed to determine probable cause.

Preliminary Investigation

- Is define as an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well

founded belief that the crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

OCAMPO VS ABANDO 2014

The Supreme court explained that a preliminary investigation is not a casual affair. It is conducted to
protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial.

While the right to have a PI before trial is statutory rather than constitutional.

It is a substantive right and a component of due process in the administration of criminal justice.

The SC added that in the context of a PI, the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to be
heard. It accords the respondent the opportunity to present his side with regard to the accusation.

Afterwards, the investigation, investigating officer shall decide whether the allegation and defenses lead
to a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that it was respondent who committed it.
Otherwise, the investigating officer is duty bound to dismiss the complaint.

ABDEPA VS OMBUDSMAN
The supreme court said, a preliminary investigation is held to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious and oppressive prosecution to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime as
well as from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial.

It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials.

While the right is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of due process in administering
a criminal justice. A preliminary investigation is not merely formal or technical right it is a substantive
right to deny the claim of the accused to the preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the full
measure of his right to due process.

Procedure of a preliminary investigation Rule 112

Since the right of the respondent to a preliminary investigation is a mere statutory right. His rights are
limited by law and Jurisprudence.

The respondent has no right to cross examine the complainant’s witnesses. Neither does he have the
right to be furnished copies of the affidavits of his co respondents.

The only rights of the respondent are to submit a counter affidavit and to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant.

If the investigating prosecutor sets a hearing to profound clarificatory questions to the parties or their
witnesses, the respondent has the right to be present and to submit to the investigating prosecutor
questions that he wants to be asked to the adverse witnesses. But without the right to cross examine
them directly.

IS THERE AN INSTANT WHEN, ALTHOUGH THE OFFENSES INVLOVE IS PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT

OF AT LEAST 4 YEARS, 2 MONTHS AND 1 DAY, A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION MAY BE DISPENSED
WITH????

Yes. When a person is validly arrested without a warrant for an offense punishable by imprisonment of
at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day. He shall be subjected to an inquest under Section 6 of Rule 112
instead of PI.

As soon as a person is arrested without a warrant, the arresting officer must immediately bring the
person arrested before a prosecutor who will then conduct an inquest which is a form of a summary
investigation.

If the inquest prosecutor, finds probable cause he shall file the information with the proper court.
Otherwise he shall dismiss the complaint or when he is in doubt recommend the conduct of a
preliminary investigation.

Before the information is filed however, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in
which case he must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125 of the RPC in the presence of his
counsel.

Article 125 limits the period within which the arrested person may be detained before he is charged in
court depending on the gravity of the offense for which he was arrested.
If the arrested person therefore, signs a waiver of article 125, he is allowing himself to be detained
beyond the limits set by article 125 while he is undergoing preliminary investigation.

The arrested persons waiver of article 125 however does not preclude him from posting bail while
preliminary investigation is being conducted.

After the information has been filed in court without preliminary investigation the accused may within 5
days from the time he learns of its filing, file with a court a motion for PI

ESTRADA VS OMBUDSMAN 2015

4 instances when probable cause must be established.

1. For the filing by the prosecutor of the information after preliminary investigation
2. For the issuance by the judge of a warrant of arrest
3. For making a warrantless arrest when an offense has just been committed
4. For the issuance by the judge of a search warrant.

BOJUNGAN JR VS DELA CRUZ

That the right to preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right but is merely a right conferred by
statute.

The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise
rendered the same defective. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a
ground for quashing the information.

If absence of preliminary investigation does not render the information invalid nor affect the jurisdiction
of the court over the case, then the denial of a motion for investigation cannot likewise invalidate the
information or else the court of each jurisdiction over the case.

In its resolution following the preliminary investigation, the prosecution office may dismiss the
complaint or order the filing of the information with the proper court against the respondent

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF A PARTY AGREED BY THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROSECUTION OFFICE?

The aggrieved party has two remedies

1. Within 10 days from his receipt of the adverse resolution. He may file a motion for
reconsideration with the prosecution office copy furnished the adverse party
2. Within 15 days from his receipt of the adverse resolution or the order of the prosecution office
denying his motion for reconsideration. The aggrieved party may file a petition for review with
the secretary of justice

A party may file only 1 motion for reconsideration

The filing of a petition for review with the secretary of justice shall not hold the filing of the
corresponding information in court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the appealed
resolution.
A respondent who file a petition for review of an adverse resolution with the secretary of justice may
move for the suspension of his arraignment but the suspension may not exceed 60 days from the filing
of the petition.

If an information has been filed in court and the accused had already been arraigned. The secretary of
justice shall no longer give due course to the petition for review filed by the accused.

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF AN ACCUSED IF THE PI OF HIS CASE WAS ATTENDED BY CONSIDERABLE
DELAY THEREBY CAUSING HIM GRAVE PREJUDICE? Should he invoke his right to a speedy trial under
section 9 of rule 119 or should he invoke his right to a speedy disposition of cases under section 16
article 3 of the 1987 constitution?

MAGANTE VS SANDIGANBAYAN 2018

The accused may move for the dismissal of his case on the ground of inordinate delay in the disposition
of his case thereby violating section 16 article 3 of the 1987 constitution which provides:

“All persons have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi judicial or
administrative bodies”

Inordinate delay as a ground for the dismissal of a case

The right to a speedy disposition of the case is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended
by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delay or when unjustified postponement of proceeding are
asked for and granted or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to
elapsed without a proceeding making any progress.

UPON THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, WHAT IS THE DUTY OF
THE JUDGE?

Section 5 of rule 112 provides That within 10 days from the filing of the information the judge shall
determine the existence of probable cause by personally evaluating the resolution of the prosecutor
and its supporting evidence.

WHY SHOULD THE JUDGE DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN THAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED BY PROSECUTORS OFFICE BEFORE IT FILED THE INFORMATION?

There are 2 kinds of determination of probable cause

1. Executive determination which is performed by the prosecutors office which is under the
executive department. Its purpose is to determine whether to file the information or to dismiss
the complaint
2. Judicial determination performed by the judge so he will know whether to issue a warrant of
arrest or to dismiss the case

Before, when the accused gets an inkling that the court is about to issue a warrant for his arrest, he will
try to preempt his arrest by filing a motion for judicial determination of probable cause. Since this
motion was allowed, the court usually sets the motion for hearing and gives the prosecution a period
within which to file its comment.
And the meantime, the court holds the issuance of a warrant sometimes for weeks giving the accused
time either to find a way to prevent issuance of the warrant or to prepare his bail.

This practice, or should I say malpractice is now prescribed by the revised guidelines for continuous trial
in criminal cases under AM 15-06-10-SC

In the revised guidelines, a motion for judicial determination of probable cause is the first in the list of
prohibited motions which the court may deny outright without requiring the prosecution to comment.

Actually, there was never a need for the accused to file a motion for judicial determination of probable
cause under section 5 of rule 112. With or without a motion it was the duty of the judge to determine
probable cause within 10 days from the filing of the information.

OCAMPO VS ABANDO 2014

That although the constitution provides , that probable cause shall be determined by the judge after an
examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, a hearing is not a
however necessary for the for the determination of probable cause.

A judge personal examination of the complaint and the witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable
for determining the propriety of issuing a warrant of arrest. It is enough that the judge personally
evaluates the prosecutors report and supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause
for the indictment or if on the basis of his evaluation he finds no probable cause to disregard the
prosecutors resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
determining its existence.

HAB VS PEOPLE

Distinction between probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest and probable cause for the
filing of information

Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances
that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense was committed by
the person sought to be arrested.

This must be distinguished from the prosecutors finding of probable cause which is for the filing of a
proper criminal information.

Probable cause for warrant of arrest is determined to address the necessity of placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

Judicial determination of probable cause upon the filing of the information.

If the RTC judge finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest.

If the judges finds no probable cause, he shall dismiss the case.

If the judge is uncertain as to the existence of probable cause, he may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within 5 days from notice.

MTC
Within 10 days from the filing of information for offenses that required PI, the judge shall determine
probable cause if the MTC judge finds probable cause he shall issue a warrant of arrest.

If the judge finds no probable cause, he shall dismiss the case

If the judge Is in doubt as to the existence of probable cause , he may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within 5 days from notice.

WHAT IF THE COMPLAINT IS DIRECTLY FILED WITH THE MTC FOR THE OFFENSE THAT DID NOT
REQUIRE PI BUT IS NOT COVERED BY THE RULE FOR SUMMARY PROCEDURE

The judge shall comply with the procedure lay down in section 3A of rule 112 and proceeds to
determine probable cause.

If the judge finds probable cause he shall issue warrant of arrest or in the exercise of his discretion issue
summon instead if he does not see for placing the accused in custody

If the information or complaint filed with the MTC is for an offense covered by rule on summary
procedure the judge shall comply with procedure set for section 3A of rule 112 and then determine
probable cause

If the judge finds no probable cause he shall dismiss the case

If the judge finds probable cause, he shall not issue a warrant of arrest unless later on, the accused failed
to appear in court when required to do so.

WHEN IS THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST MANDATORY

The issuance of warrant of arrest is mandatory when the offense charged is punisibale by imprisonment
of at least 4 years 2 months and 1 day and the judge finds probable cause.

WHEN IT IS DISCRETIONARY

When the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment of less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day but is
not covered by the revised rule on summary procedure because it is punishable by imprisonment of
more than 6 months and the judge finds probable causE

WHEN IT IS PROHIBITED

When the offense charged is covered by the rule on summary procedure even if the judge finds
probable cause.

113
Arrest is defined as the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for a
commission of an offense.

2 ways that arrest may be made

 1. By actual restraint of the person to be arrested
2. By a persons voluntary submission to the custody of a persons making the arrest

PESTILOS VS GENEROSO 2014

The SC provides how an arrest may be effected.

An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested or by his submission to the custody of
the persons making the arrest. Thus, application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical
restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an intention on the
part of the parties to arrest the other and the intent of the other under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary.

As a rule, an arrest is valid when it is made with warrant.

5 instances of valid warrantless arrest:

1. When in the presence of the arresting officer the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime.

This kind of warrantless arrest is referred to as an arrest in flagrante delicto under section 5A
113.

An arrest 2 requires two elements

a. The person to be arrest must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime
b. Such overt is done in the presence of, or within the view of the arresting officer

PEOPLE VS ADRIANO 2014

That the buy bust operation is a form of entrapment in which the violator is caught in flagrante felicto
and the police officers conducitng the operation are not only authorize but duty bound to apprehend
the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part or used in the commission of a
crime.

The accused was arrested in the act of committing an offense in flagrante delicto as he was selling illegal
shabu through a buy bust operation within the plain view of the arresting offiers.

PEOPL VS MARCELO

The accused was validly arrested withoiut a warrant after he was caught exchanging shabu in her
possession for the marked money of the poseur buyer.

Having been caught in flagrante delicto the police officers are not only authorize even duty bound to
arrest her even without a warrant

SANCHEZ VS PEOPLE 2014

There was no valid inflagrante delicto arrest. No overt physical act could be attributed to sanchez as to
rouse suspicion in the minds of the police operatives that he has just committed, was committing, or
was about to commit a crime.

When sanchez arrested by police operatives he was merely leaving the residence of a know drug
peddler and voiding a trycicle. Such acts cannot be considered as overt act indicating that sanchez has
just committed, actually commmitng or is attempting to commit a crime.

PEOPLE VS ANDAYA

The SC declared the warrantless aresst of the accused as illegal since none of the arresting officers saw
the commission of the crime. A confidential informant who is not a policeman was designated to be
poseur buyer. The arresting offciers were positioned at a place where they could not see what the the
poseur and the accused were doing. When they arrested the accused upon the prearrange signal made
by the confidential informant. The transaction between the latter and the accused had already been
consummated. Moreover, the prosecution did not present the confidential informant as witness.

2. When an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
HOT PURSUIT. SECTION 5B OF RULE 113

2 elements of Hot Pursuit

a) An offense has just been committed
b) The arresting officer has probable cause to believe based in his personal knowledge of facts
or circumstance that the person to be arrested has committed the crime

The 1st requirement that the offense has just been committed means that there must be close proximity
in time between the commission of the offen`se and the arrest. If there is an appreciable lapse of time
separating the commission of the crime and the arrest. Any arrest made would be an illegal. The
arresting officer must secure a warrant of arrest.

The 2nd element requires the arresting officer to exercise his discretion whether to make the arrest or
not. His exercise of discretion however, must conform to the standard of probable cause that must be
based on facts and circumstances within his personal knowledge.

The requirements of probable cause makes the warrantless arrest reasonable for purposes of
compliance with the constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrest.

PESTILOS VS GENEROSO

2 elements of hot pursuit

Upon the complaint of atty Generoso of his alleged malling. The arresting officers went to the scene of
the crime arriving there 1 hour after the alleged molling. Atty generoso told the police officers that he
was mold in the neigjborhood where he and the 3 perpetrators reside. Atty generoso possibly identified
the 3 persons who mold him when the police officers confronted these persons they did not deny what
they did although they told different version of a story. With this facts and circumstances the police
officers gathered in which they personallay observed less than 1 hr from the time that they have arrvive
at the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the accused. It is reasonable to conclude that the
police officers had personal knowledge of facts or cicumstances to justify their warrantless arrest of the
accused. These circumstances were well within the police officers observation, perception and
evaluation at the time of the arrest. These circumstance qualify as the police officers personal
observation which are within the personal knowledge prompting them to make the warrantless arrest.

PEOPLE VS VILLAREAL

That the arresting officers personal knowledge of the past criminal records of the person to be arrested
is insufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.

To interpret personal knowledge as the police officers kwowledge of a persons reputation or past
criminal citations would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessary stretch the authority and power
of police officers to effect warrantless arrest based solely on knowledge of a persons previous criminal
infractions.

Rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites lay down under section 5 paragraph D of Rule 113.

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from the penal establishment
or a place where he is serving a final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending or has escape while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The rationale behind this rule under section 5 C of rule 113 is that an escapee is actually in the act of
committing a crime which is evasion of sentence.

4. Section 13 of rule 113. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued. Any person may
immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the
Philippines.

5. 2nd Paragraph of section 23 of rule 114. An accused released on bail who attempt to depart
from the Philippines without permission from the court where his case is pending may be
validly arrested without a warrant

114 BAIL

Section 1 of rule 114

Bail – defines bail as a security given for the release of the person in custody of the law furnished by him
or a bondsman to guarantee his appearance before any court.

DAVID VS AGBAY 2015

Distinction between the phrase custody of the law and the phrase jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.

Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail but it is not
required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant whre the mere application
therefore constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One
can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

Such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the
warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person and yet
not be in the custody of the law such as when the accused escapes in the custody after his trial has
commence. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person who is thereby deprive of
his own will and liberty binding him to become obedient to the will of the law.

Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused it includes but is not limited to
detention.

WHAT IF ANY IS THE BASIS IN SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL NO LESS THAN THE 1987
CONSTITUTION CONFERS IN EVERY PERSON THE RIGHT TO BAIL

Section 13 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitutions, provides that all persons except those charge 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 privileged of writ of habeas corpus is suspended.

Excessive bail shall not be required

LEVISTE VS COURT OF APPEALS

Bail is the answer of the criminal justice system to a vexing question what is to be done in the accused
whose guilt is not yet proven in the uncertain interval of a years long between arrest and final
adjudication.

Bail acts a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused interest in pre trial liberty and
societys interest in assuring the accused presence at the trial.

WHEN IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT?

Bail is a matter of right before or after conviction by the MTC or before conviCtion by THE RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

MAY THE COURT DENY BAIL TO AN ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF FLIGHT RISK OR THAT HE IS
SLIGHTLY TO COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME IF RELEASE ON BAIL OR THAT HE IS RECIDIVIST OR A
HABITUAL DELIQUENT?

NO. When bail is a matter of right under no circumstance may the court deny bail to the accused.

Jurisprudence has ordained that the only discretion that the court may exercise when the bail is a
matter of right is to increase the amount of the bail but even that, discretion is limited.

The constitution itself prohibits courts from requiring excessive bail. Article 3, section 13

WHEN BAIL IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION?

 1. Bail is discretionary before conviction by RTC for an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.
2. Upon conviction by RTC of the accused of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment

Section 7 of rule 114 pertains to the first instance

Provides that no person charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment should be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong

These are non bailable offenses

To deny – it must be shown that the evidence of guilt is strong

HOW WILL THE COURT DETERMINE WETHER THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED IS STRONG OR
NOT

WHICH PARTY HAS THE BURDEN THAT THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG OR NOT

VILLANUEVA VS BUAYA

That the bail hearing in petition for bail is indispensable. Where bail is a matter of discretion, the grant
or denial of bail on the issue hinges only issue whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is
strong and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion.

The judges discretion does not lie whether to hold a hearing or not as each is always be heldbut in the
appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the prosecutions evidence of guilt against the accused.

GACAL VS INFANTE

That the hearing upon notice is mandatory before the grant of bail. This is specially true in the
prosecution of non bailalble offenses. Even if the accuse did not file an application for bail and even if
the public prosecutor had recommended bail, a hearing should still be held. The public prosecutors
recommendation that the accused be granted bail for his non opposition to the grant of bail could not
be reason to dispensed with a bail hearing.

GACAD VS LAPIZ

The hearing for the application of bail filed by a person who is in custody for a commission of non
bailable offenses, the prosecution has the burden of showing the evidence of guilt is strong.

This rule presupposes that:

1. That an application for bail was made

2. The judge notify prosecutor and conducted the bail hearing for the prosecution to adduce
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused

The respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and rules where he granted bail to the
accused charged with murder without conducting a hearing and despite the absence of a petition for
bail filed by the accused.
The court emphasize that bail cannot be allowed a person charged with a capital offense or an offense
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment without a hearing upon notice to the
prosecution othwerwise a violation of due process is committed.

The 2nd instance when bail is discretionary is when the accused has been convicted by the regional trial
court of an offense where the penalty impose is not death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment

Since bail in this instance is discretionary it must necessarily applied for

WITH WHAT COURT SHOULD THE ACCUSED FILE HIS PETITION FOR BAIL?

If the record of the case is still with the RTC despite a perfection of an appeal, the accused shall file for
bail with the RTC, otherwise he shall file his petition with the appellate court

If the judgment of conviction change the nature of the offense from non bailable to bailable, bail can
only be applied for in the appellate court.

I notice - Nor more than 6 years - bail is discretionary

Exceeding 6 years – bail is discretionary

Under the 3rd paragraph of Section 5 of rule 114 provides that the accused shall be denied bail if it is
shown by the prosecution during the bail hearing that any of the so called bail negating circumstances
exist.

1. That the accused is recidivist, quasi recidivist or habitual delinquent or has committed a crime
aggravated by theses circumstance of illitiration
2. That he has previously escape from legal confinement, evaded sentence or violated the
conditions of his bail without a valid justification
3. That he committed an offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon
4. That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if release on bail
5. That there is a risk that the accused may commit another crime during the pendency of the
appeal

If any of the 5 bail negating circumstances is shown to exist the court has no choice but to deny bail

In this instance bail is not discretionary but is prohibited

If the prosecution failed to shown that any of negating circumstances exist. The court may deny bail in
its discretion. The court may grant the bail

QUI VS PEOPLE

Pursuant to the taf on bail pending appeal policy the presence of bail negates condition mandates the
denial or revocation of bail pending appeal.

If any of theses circumstances is present. It is as if the accused has been convicted of an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpeetua or life imprisonment where bail is prohibited

LEVEISTE VS CA
If the RTC upon conviction of the accused imposed the penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 year but
not death, RP, or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of discretion

If during the bail hearing the prosecution failed to show that any of the bail negating circumstances
mentioned in the 3rd paragraph in the section 5 of rule 114 is present, the court in the exercise of its
discretion may grant or deny bail

An application for bail pending appeal may be denied even if non of the bail negating circumstances is
present.

MAY AN ACCUSED WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH, RP OR LIFE
IMPRISONMENT BE GRANTED BAIL?

NO. it is non bailable offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. It has been established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

MAY ANC ACCUSED WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT
UNDER A FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT BE ADMITTED TO BAIL

NO. Because the accused would start serving sentence already. Bail is granted only for the provisional
liberty of the accused during the trial of his case but before he is convicted under a final judgment.

WHERE SHOULD BAIL BE FILED?

1. The accused shall file his bail with the court where his case is pending

In the absence or unavailability of judge in said court, the accused may file his bail with the RTC or MTC
judge of the place where his case is pending

If the accused is arrested in a place other than his case is pending he may file his bail with any RTC of the
said place.

If no RTC judge is available, he may file of any MTC of said place

If the grant of bail is a matter of discretion or the accused seeks to be released on recognizance he can
only file his bail with the court where his case is pending

A person who has been arrested but has not been charged in court may apply for bail with any court of
place where he is detained

Forfeiture and cancellation of bail

Bail is forfeited when the accused violates any of the conditions of his bail

Bail is canceled when it is no longer needed

When an accused has admitted to bail he is bound by certain conditions attached to his bail – (Purpose)
to appear in court when ordered to do so

Since it is the right of the accused. He may waive it by not appearing in court without being penalize for
it
The court may order the accused to appear in court such as

1. When he is to be identified by the prosecutions witnesses or when he is to be arraigned

When the accused fails to appear in court without valid cause despite being ordered to do so.

The court may order his bail forfeited in favor of the government. This is forfeiture of bail.

WHEN IS BAIL, NO LONGER NECESSARY SO THAT IT MAY BE CANCELLED – granted for provisional
liberty

When the accused is acquitted or the accused dies or when the case against him is dismiss or when he is
to served sentence under a final judgment of conviction

When bail is cancelled it is returned to the bondsman or the accused

An accused who has applied for or has been admitted to bail is not barred from questioning the validity
of his arrest or the legality of warrant of arrest against him

Moreover, he may still assail the regularity or the absence of PI of the charged against him

The accused may still do all of these provided that he has not entered his plea

115
Rights of the accused

Constitutional right under section 14 article 3 of the 1987 constitution

1ST. The most consenquential right of the accused is the reight to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt

PEOPLE VS ESTEBAL 2014

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the bill of rights guaranteed unless his
guilt has shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be aquittted.

This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the constitution which
Protect the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in unprejudiced mind

The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged

Guiding Principle: it would be better to set free 10 men who might be guilty than to convict 1 innocent
man for a crime he did not commit.

The 2nd right of the accused under rule 115, is the right to be informed of the nature and the cause of
the accusation against him
PATULA VS PEOPLE

The SC enjoined the prosecution to never take for granted the importance of properly alleging in
information the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused. An accused cannot be
convicted of an offense that it is not clearly charged in the information.

To convict him of an offense other than the charged in the information would be a clear violation of his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of accusation against him

3rd Right of the accused to be present and defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings from arraignment to promulgation of judgment

The right to be present at every stage of the proceeding is a constitutional right of the accused that he
may waive for not appearing in court during a hearing of case without being penalize and the court may
proceed the trial without violating the right of the accused.

If the accused however is unable to attend to a hearing due to some valid cause such as illness, the court
may not proceed with the trial as it would violate the right of the accused to be present at every stage of
the proceeding of his case

4th right of an accused is to testify as a witness in his own behalf

While the prosecution cannot compel the accused to be a witness against himself, it is the right of the
accused to be a witness in his own behalf. Once the accused however takes the witness stand he is
opening himself to cross examination by the prosecution.

Unless the defense counsel is absolutely sure of his client’s innocence

He should not have think of placing him on the witness stand

No adverse conclusion could be drawn from the accused failure to take the witness stand

5th right of the accused is not to be compelled to be a witness agasinst himself

The right of a witness against self incrimination is right not to answer a question which may subject him
for a penalty of an offense. The accused may refuse to take the witness stand by invoking his right to be
a witness against himself

A witness however may not refuse to take witness stand by invoking his right against self incrimination.
He has to wait the question to be asked before he can invoke his right against self incrimination

PEOPLE VS FIELDAD

The taking of pharapine test on the hands of the accused does not violate his right against self
incrimination. This constitutional right prohibits only testimonial compulsion and not the examination of
the body of the accused. Requiring the accsued to perform purely mechanical act or taking some fluids
from his body to be tested are not included In thr prohibition as the accused are not hereby compelled
to speak his guilt

6th right of the accused is t oconfront and cross examine the witnesses against him

2 fold purpose
 1. It afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses against him by cross
examination which is a valuable instrument in exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth
2. It gives the judge the opportunity to observe the demeanor and deportment of witnesses while
testifying and to assess their credibility

This constitutional requirement ensures that the witness will give his testimony under oath thus
deterring lying by the threat of perjury charge

7th right of the accused is to have complusary process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf

This right, refers to the right of an accused to as the court to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance
of witnesses

A subpoena is an effective way to compel a person to testify in court whether he likes it or not

8th right is to have speedy, impartial and public trial

TV network case, to be allowed to cover maguindanao massacre trial

That the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. That progressive publicity
is not per se prejudicial to the right of accused to a fair trial.

And that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capcity of a judge to render a bias decision

Mere fear of possible undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in deprivation of
the right to a fair trial

Last right to appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law

Criminal case – the right to appeal is a constitutional right

Civil Case – the right to appeal is a statutory right