CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 1

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW - MANILA

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES

ARTICLE III Bill of Rights Judicial Discretion

SECTION 13 Judicial discretion, by its very nature involves the exercise of the
RIGHT TO BAIL judge's individual opinion and the law has wisely provided that its
exercise be guided by well-known rules which, while allowing the
judge rational latitude for the operation of his own individual views,
BASCO vs. RAPATALO
prevent them from getting out of control.
Nature and Purposes of Bail
"Bail" is the security required by the court and given by the accused
An uncontrolled or uncontrollable discretion on the part of a judge
to ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at the
is a misnomer. It is a fallacy.
scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought against him or
her.
Lord Mansfield, speaking of the discretion to be exercised in granting
or denying bail said: "But discretion when applied to a court of justice,
In theory, the only function of bail is to ensure the appearance of the
means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule,
defendant at the time set for trial. The sole purpose of confining the
not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful; but legal
accused in jail before conviction, it has been observed, is to assure his
and regular."
presence at the trial.
Summary Hearing
In other words, if the denial of bail is authorized in capital offenses,
A summary hearing means such brief and speedy method of receiving
it is only in theory that the proof being strong, the defendant would
and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent
flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than face the verdict of the court.
with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the weight
of evidence for the purposes of bail.
Exception to the Fundamental Right to be Bailed
Hence the exception to the fundamental right to be bailed should be
On such hearing, the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into
applied in direct ratio to the extent of probability of evasion of the
any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the
prosecution. In practice, bail has also been used to prevent the release
evidence for or against the accused, nor will it speculate on the
of an accused who might otherwise be dangerous to society or whom
outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be therein offered
the judges might not want to release."
and admitted.
Bail in the case of Capital Offense
It is mandatory for a judge to require hearing
It is in view of the abovementioned practical function of bail that it is
PEOPLE vs. SOLA

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)

not a matter of right in cases where the person is charged with a capital
"We are of the considered opinion that whether the motion for bail of
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a
imprisonment.
summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution
must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all
Rule 114, section 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended, states, "No
the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should
person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal case involved in the
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is
instant special civil action, the prosecution should be denied such an
strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal
opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and
action."
the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that
ground."
When Grant of Bail is discretionary
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden
PEOPLE vs. DACUDAO
of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
"Whatever the court possessed at the time it issued the questioned
However, the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is
ruling was intended only for prima facie determining whether or not
strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge.
there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that the
crime was committed and pinpointing the persons who probably
When discretion may be rightly exercised
committed it. Whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong for each
"This discretion by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised
individual accused still has to established unless the prosecution
only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since
submits the issue on whatever it has already presented. To appreciate
the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since
the strength or weakness of the evidence of guilt, the prosecution must
evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced
be consulted or held. It is equally entitled to due process."
before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial
discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court,
PEOPLE vs. CALO
the petitioner having the right of cross examination and to introduce
"The prosecution in the instant case was not given adequate
his own evidence in rebuttal."
opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt and to
present within a reasonable time all the evidence it desired to present."
Discretion of the Trial Court is not absolute
To be sure, the discretion of the trial court, "is not absolute nor beyond
control. It must be sound, and exercised within reasonable bounds.

LIBARIOS vs. DABALO
"Where a person is accused of a capital offense, the trial court must
conduct a hearing in a summary proceeding to allow the prosecution
to present, within a reasonable time, all evidence it may desire to
produce to prove that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong
before resolving the issue of bail for the temporary release of the
accused. Failure to conduct a hearing before fixing bail in the
instant case amounted to a violation of due process."
PEOPLE vs. NANO
"It is well settled that an application for bail from a person charged
with a capital offense (now an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua) must be set for hearing at which both the defense and the
prosecution must be given reasonable opportunity to prove (in case of
the prosecution) that the evidence of guilt of the applicant is strong, or
(in the case of the defense) that such evidence of guilt was not strong."
DE GUIA vs. MAGLALANG
"It is an established principle that in cases where a person is accused
of a capital offense, the trial court must conduct a hearing in a
summary proceeding, to allow the prosecution an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all evidence it may desire to produce
to prove that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong, before
resolving the issue of bail for the temporary release of the accused.
Failure to conduct a hearing before fixing bail amounts to a violation
of due process."
BORINAGA vs. TAMIN
"Whether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for a
capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course
of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present within a reasonable time all evidence it may desire to
introduce before the court may resolve the motion for bail."
AURILLO vs. FRANCISCO
"A hearing is absolutely indispensable before a judge can properly
determine whether the prosecution's evidence is weak or strong.
Hence, a denial of the prosecution's request to adduce evidence,
deprives it of procedural due process, a right to which it is equally
entitled as the defense. A hearing is required to afford the judge a basis
for determining the existence of those factors set forth under Rule 114,
Sec 6."
ESTOYA vs. ABRAHAM-SINGSON
"In immediately granting bail and fixing it at only P20,000.00 for each
of the accused without allowing the prosecution to present its evidence,
the respondent denied the prosecution due process. This Court had said
so in many cases and had imposed sanctions on judges who granted
applications for bail in capital offenses and in offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua without giving the prosecution the opportunity to
prove that the evidence of guilt is strong."
AGUIRRE vs. BELMONTE
"A hearing is mandatory before bail can be granted to an accused who
is charged with a capital offense."
LARDIZABAL vs. REYES
"The rule is explicit that when an accused is charged with a serious
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, such as rape, bail may be
granted only after a motion for that purpose has been filed by the
accused and a hearing thereon conducted by a judge to determine
whether or not the prosecution's evidence of guilt is strong."
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 2
GUILLERMO vs. REYES
"The error of the respondent judge lies in the fact that in his subsequent
consideration of the application for bail, he acted affirmatively thereon
without conducting another hearing and what is worse, his order
concededly lacked the requisite summary or resume of the evidence
presented by the parties and necessary to support the grant of bail."
SANTOS vs. OFILADA
"Where admission to bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing is
mandatory before an accused can be granted bail. At the hearing, both
the prosecution and the defense must be given reasonable
opportunity to prove, in case of the prosecution, that the evidence of
guilt of the applicant is strong, and in the case of the defense, that
evidence of such guilt is not strong."
SULE vs. BITENG
"With his open admission that he granted bail to the accused without
giving the prosecution any opportunity to be heard, the respondent
deliberately disregarded decisions of this court holding that such act
amounts to a denial of due process, and made himself administratively
liable for gross ignorance of the law for which appropriate sanctions
may be imposed."
REYMUALDO BUZON, JR. VS. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO
"When bail is a matter of discretion, the judge is required to conduct a
hearing and to give notice of such hearing to the fiscal or require him
to submit his recommendation. x x x Truly, a judge would not be in a
position to determine whether the prosecution's evidence is weak or
strong unless a hearing is first conducted."
Importance of the Hearing
A hearing is likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail. "The
JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)
importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases
wherein the court ruled that even if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail, it is
still 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."
Fixing the Amount of Bail
Corollarily, another reason why hearing of a petition for bail is
required, as can be gleaned from the abovecited case, is for the court
to take into consideration the guidelines set forth in Section 6, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail.
Absence of Objection is not a basis for granting bail
The absence of objection from the prosecution is never a basis for
granting bail to the accused. It is the court's determination after a
hearing that the guilt of the accused is not strong that forms the basis
for granting bail.
Respondent Judge should not have relied solely on the
recommendation made by the prosecutor but should have ascertained
personally whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
Judge is not bound by prosecutor’s recommendation
After all, the judge is not bound by the prosecutor's recommendation.
Moreover, there will be a violation of due process if the respondent
Judge grants the application for bail without hearing since Section 8 of
Rule 114 provides that whatever evidence presented for or against the
accused's provisional release will be determined at the hearing.

Section 8, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. At the hearing of an
application for admission to bail filed by any 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 hearings 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
witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to
testify."
The above-underscored sentence in Section 8, Rule 114 of the 1985
Rules of Court, as amended, was added to address a situation where
in case the prosecution does not choose to present evidence to oppose
the application for bail, the judge may feel duty-bound to grant the bail
application.
In such a case, the judge may well lose control of the proceedings. In
a sense, this undermines the authority of a judge since all that the
prosecution has to do to "force" the judge to grant the bail application
is to refrain from presenting evidence opposing the same.
In effect, this situation makes Sections 6 and 7 of the 1940 Rules of
Court on "Bail" meaningless since whether or not the evidence of guilt
of a person charged with a capital offense is strong cannot be
determined if the prosecution chooses not to present evidence or
oppose the bail application in a hearing precisely to be conducted by
the trial judge for that purpose, as called for in the two sections.
When the prosecution fails or refuses to adduce
In the event that the prosecution fails or refuses to adduce evidence
in the scheduled hearing, then a hearing as in a regular trial should be
scheduled. In this regard, a hearing in the application for bail
necessarily means presentation of evidence, and the filing of a
comment or a written opposition to the bail application by the
prosecution will not suffice.
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO
Bail cannot be denied when the offense is bailable
We agree with the respondent court that bail cannot be denied to the
private respondent for he is charged with the crime of rebellion as
defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code to which is attached
the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00. It
is, therefore, a bailable offense under Section 13 of Article III of the
1987 Constitution.
Section 3, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
Bail, a matter of right: exception. — All persons in custody shall,
before final conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right, except
those charged with a capital offense or an offense which, under the law
at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail,
is punishable by reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong.
Bail is a matter of right or discretion
Therefore, before conviction bail is either a matter of right or of
discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is
punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. To that
extent the right is absolute.
Right to Bail shall not be impaired
The 1987 Constitution strengthens further the right to bail by explicitly
providing that it shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 3
When grant of bail becomes a matter of discretion
Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is punishable by
reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion.
It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The court's
discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is
strong. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not
strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.
When can the prosecution adduce evidence in terms of bail
Accordingly, the prosecution does not have the right to present
evidence for the denial of bail in the instances where bail is a matter
of right.
However, in the cases where the grant of bail is discretionary, due
process requires that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to
introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail.
Waiver of right in this case
It is the stand of the petitioner that private respondent, "in agreeing to
remain in legal custody even during the pendency of the trial of his
criminal case, [he] has expressly waived his right to bail."
Legal Custody
"Custody" has been held to mean nothing less than actual
imprisonment. It is also defined as the detainer of a person by virtue of
a lawful authority, or the "care and possession of a thing or person."
Section 1 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court admits no other
meaning or interpretation for the term "in custody of the law" than that
as above indicated. The purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from
imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the
JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)
trial. It presupposes that the person applying for it should be in the
custody of the law or otherwise deprived of liberty.
PEOPLE vs. FORTES
Clear implication of the constitutional provision
The clear implication, therefore is that if an accused who is charged
with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial
court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of
right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court.
In such a situation, the court would not have only determined that the
evidence of guilt is strong — which would have been sufficient to deny
bail even before conviction — it would have likewise ruled that the
accused's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Bail must not be granted during the pendency of the appeal
Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the pendency of
his appeal from the judgment of conviction. Construing Section 3,
Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, this
Court, in the en banc Resolution of 15 October 1991 in People vs.
Ricardo Cortez, ruled that:
Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an accused who is charged with a
capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, shall
no longer be entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he appeals
the case to this Court since his conviction clearly imports that the
evidence of his guilt of the offense charged is strong.

COMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA
Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case
The Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies and
on petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto. In the absence of a
law providing that the decisions, orders and ruling of a court-martial
or the Office of the Chief of Staff can be questioned only before the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, we hold that the Regional
Trial Court can exercise similar jurisdiction.
Right to Bail is not available in the military
We find that the right to bail invoked by the private respondents in
G.R. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been recognized and is not
available in the military, as an exception to the general rule
embodied in the Bill of Rights. This much was suggested in ARULA,
where we observed that "the right to a speedy trial is given more
emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.
Justification of the exception
The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to
exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to
bail.
Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that mutinous
soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system, are
allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the government for the
discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of
revenues collected from the people. All other insurgent elements carry
out their activities outside of and against the existing political system.
xxx xxx xxx
National security considerations should also impress upon this
Honorable Court that release on bail of respondents constitutes a
damaging precedent.
Imagine a scenario of say 1,000 putschists roaming the streets of the
Metropolis on bail, or if the assailed July 25,1990 Order were
sustained, on "provisional" bail. The sheer number alone is already
discomforting. But, the truly disquieting thought is that they could
freely resume their heinous activity which could very well result in
the overthrow of duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable
Court, and replace the same with a system consonant with their own
concept of government and justice.
Non-enjoyment of the right is not violative of the equal protection
The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail would
violate the equal protection clause is not acceptable. This guaranty
requires equal treatment only of persons or things similarly situated
and does not apply where the subject of the treatment is substantially
different from others. The accused officers can complain if they are
denied bail and other members of the military are not. But they cannot
say they have been discriminated against because they are not allowed
the same right that is extended to civilians.
BAYLON vs. JUDGE SISON
Time was not the essence; Errors of the respondent judge
We reject the first tenuous proposition that time was of the essence,
since the ambient circumstances obtaining prior to the grant of bail
could not but have cautioned respondent judge to be more
circumspect in entertaining and resolving the petition therefor.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 4
(1) First, the accused were charged with double murder, each of
which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, hence
bail is not a matter of right.
(2) Second, no bail was recommended in the information which
was filed on the bases of the sworn statements of several
eyewitnesses to the incident, thus constituting clear and
strong evidence of the guilt of all the accused.
(3) Third, at the time of the application for bail, there was still
pending a reinvestigation of the case being conducted by
the Office of the City Prosecutor. It must be noted that the
reinvestigation was at the instance of the accused
themselves, hence any resultant delay caused by the conduct
thereof is naturally and logically attributable to them.
(4) finally, the guileful setting of the hearing of the petition for
bail on December 23, 1991, when the same was filed only on
December 21, 1991 which was a Saturday, readily casts
doubt on the good faith in and the regularity of the
procedure adopted by the defense.
Applicable legal principle in the exercise of discretion
. . . The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to present
evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail,
it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed
against in determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In
other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within
the confines of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation of the
evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any order issued in the absence
thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim and
caprice and outright arbitrariness.
JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)
When bail may be granted
The rule is explicit that when an accused is charged with a serious
offense punishable with reclusion perpetua to death, such as murder,
bail may be granted only after a motion for that purpose has been
filed by the accused and a hearing thereon conducted by a judge to
determine whether or not the prosecution's evidence of guilt is strong.
Whether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for a
capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course
of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may wish to
introduce on the probable guilt of the accused, before the court resolves
the motion for bail.
MANOTOC vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Section 1, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security
required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of
the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance
may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.
Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the
burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to put
the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in
custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the
accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may
require of him.
The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at
all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid
restriction on his right to travel.

Obligation Assumed by the Surety
... the result of the obligation assumed by appellee (surety) to hold the
accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower
court, was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the
Philippines, because, otherwise, said orders and processes will be
nugatory, and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which
they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would
have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction.
Effect of a Recognizance or Bail bond
The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or filed
of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the
custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in
their charge to keepers of his own selection. Such custody has been
regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The
sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the
principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the
state.
GOVERNMENT OF THE U.S. vs. JUDGE PURGANAN
Procedure adopted is tantamount to giving notice to flee
As we have stated, the procedure adopted by the Extradition Court of
first notifying and hearing a prospective extraditee before the actual
issuance of the warrant for his arrest, is tantamount to giving notice to
flee and avoid extradition. Whether a candidate for extradition does in
fact go into hiding or not is beside the point. In the final analysis, the
method adopted by the lower court was completely at loggerheads
with the purpose, object and rationale of the law, and overlooked the
evils to be remedied.
As already suggested in our Decision (p. 32), private respondent can
avoid arrest and detention which are the consequences of the
extradition proceeding simply by applying for bail before the courts
trying the criminal cases against him in the USA. He himself has
repeatedly told us that the indictments against him in the United States
are bailable. Furthermore, he is capable, financially and otherwise, of
producing the necessary bail in the US. Why then has he not done so?
Otherwise stated, Respondent Jimenez has the actual power to lift his
arrest and detention arising from his extradition by simply and
voluntarily going to and filing bail in the USA.
International Extradition
International Extradition is a process under which a sovereign state
surrenders to another sovereign state a person accused in a case or a
fugitive offender in the latter state.
But while, historically, extradition was for the purpose of obtaining the
surrender of political offenders, the trend, starting in the 19th century,
has been to refuse the extradition of a person sought for political
crimes. This shift can be explained partly to the emergence of
humanitarian international law which has given impetus to a new legal
status of one of the participants, i.e., the individual, thus placing some
limitations on the power of the respective sovereigns that did not
historically exist.
The 1987 Constitution has its own standards for bail
No country is under any legal obligation to adopt, or blindly be in
conformity with, procedures from other jurisdictions. The proposed
solution of developing a "special circumstances standard" in
determining whether bail should be granted or not, following what
could be considered to be mere pro hac vice pronouncements of some
foreign courts, might not be apropos. Indeed, setting up the so-called
"special circumstances standard" would be to ignore our own
constitutional mandate on bail.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 5
Exceptions and Qualifications of Right to Bail
Starting with the declaration that the right to bail is available to all
persons, the Constitution proceeds to define its exceptions and
qualifications —
1. when a criminal offense is a capital one and the evidence of
guilt is strong, and
2. when granted the bail shall not be excessive.
The circumstance of "high risk of flight" upon which the main
decision anchors its refusal to grant bail is conspicuously absent from
the recital. The Eighth Amendment of the US Federal Constitution,
unlike the Philippine Constitution does not categorically provide for
bail as a matter of right. Thus, wrestling with the compatibility of the
grant of bail in extradition proceedings with basic constitutional
guarantees, which US judges have been faced with, should not be our
dilemma.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Ynares-Santiago
If the purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from the rigors of
imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance
at trial, then by analogy, an extraditee, who may or may not yet have
been charged, and who is threatened with temporary imprisonment in
both the requested and requesting states, should also benefit from the
right to bail.
Due to the striking similarity in their circumstances, there is therefore
no sufficient basis for distinguishing between an accused person and a
potential extraditee in terms of their entitlement to bail. This occasion
calls for the adherence to the well-entrenched principle ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. The Constitutional grant of
bail should, as a matter of right, be made available to the accused and
the extraditee alike.
JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG vs. HON OLALIA
Constitutional provision on Bail does not apply to extradition
proceedings
constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition
proceedings. It is "available only in criminal proceedings," thus:
x x x. As suggested by the use of the word "conviction," the
constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does
not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not
render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Right to bail flows from constitutional presumption of innocence
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption
of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to
the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal,
unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt"
It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a
case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at
issue.
Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus finds application "only to persons judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
invasion" (Sec. 18, Art. VIII, Constitution). Hence, the second
sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the
right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses.
It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition
proceedings that are not criminal in nature.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 6

Trends in International Law Extradition is Sui Generis

1. the growing importance of the individual person in public
international law who, in the 20th century, has gradually
attained global recognition;
2. the higher value now being given to human rights in the
international sphere;
3. the corresponding duty of countries to observe these
universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations;
and
4. the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual
under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on
extradition, on the other.
Principle from Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding
While not a treaty, the principles contained in the said Declaration
are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of
the international community. Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons,
this Court, in granting bail to a prospective deportee, held that
under the Constitution, the principles set forth in that Declaration are
part of the law of the land. In 1966, the UN General Assembly also
adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
the Philippines signed and ratified. Fundamental among the rights
enshrined therein are the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due
process.
Reexamination of the PURGANAN Ruling
1. First, we note that the exercise of the State’s power to
deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited
to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative
proceedings, such as deportation and quarantine, have
likewise been detained.
It is not a criminal proceeding. Even if the potential extraditee is a
criminal, an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it
is not punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may
follow extradition. It is sui generis, tracing its existence wholly to
treaty obligations between different nations. It is not a trial to
determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. Nor is
it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in
character. Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or
convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he
fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment.
Characteristics of Extradition
(a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential
extraditee and
(b) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition
is also "the machinery of criminal law."
Burden of showing of not being a flight risk
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise
behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention"
is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on
the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice.
Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus
probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be
granted bail.

2. Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)

close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Philippine
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail
to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail
persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. In
fact, bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in
detention during the pendency of administrative
proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation of the
Philippines under international conventions to uphold
human rights.

U.S. vs. GO-SIOCO

"To refuse him bail is to treat him as a person who has committed the
most serious crime known to law;" and that while deportation is not a
criminal proceeding, some of the machinery used "is the machinery of
criminal law." Thus, the provisions relating to bail was applied to
deportation proceedings.

Right of Prospective Extraditee

Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this
jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations
of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection
of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of
human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to
liberty of every individual is not impaired.

Extradition
Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign
power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender of one accused or
convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction, and the
correlative duty of the other state to surrender him to the demanding
state.