CASE DIGEST CONSTI2
37. Yap vs CA GR 141529 June 6, 2001
FACTS- For misappropriating amounts equivalent to P5,500,000.00, petitioner was convicted of
estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City and was sentenced to four years and two months of
prision correccional but in no case shall it exceed twenty (20) years.
After the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed with
the said court a Motion to Fix Bail For the Provisional Liberty of Accused-Appellant Pending Appeal.
Asked to comment on this motion, the Solicitor General opined that petitioner may be allowed to
post bail in the amount of P5,500,000.00 and be required to secure a certification/guaranty from the
Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be so
until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the
court and private complainant. Petitioner filed a Reply, contending that the proposed bail of
P5,500,000.00 was violative of his right against excessive bail.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals, by setting bail at a prohibitory amount,
effectively denied him his right to bail. He challenges the legal basis of respondent court for fixing
bail at P5,500,000.00, which is equivalent to the amount of his civil liability to private complainant
Manila Mahogany Marketing Corporation, and argues that the Rules of Court never intended for the
civil liability of the accused to be a guideline or basis for determining the amount of bail. He prays
that bail be reduced to at least P40,000.00.
The Solicitor General maintains that no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the
Court of Appeals for fixing the amount of bail at P5,500,000.00 considering the severity of the
penalty imposed, the weight of the evidence against petitioner, and the gravity of the offense of
which petitioner was convicted by the RTC. He asserted that the P5,500,000.00 not only
corresponded to civil liability but also to the amount of fraud imputed to petitioner.
ISSUE-Won the respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the bail
for the provisional liberty of petitioner pending appeal in the amount of P5.5 million.
RULING- The prohibition against requiring excessive bail is enshrined in the Constitution. That
imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. The Court made the
pronouncement that it will not hesitate to exercise its supervisory powers over lower courts should
the latter, after holding the accused entitled to bail, effectively deny the same by imposing a
prohibitory sum or exacting unreasonable conditions.
At the same time, Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure advises
courts to consider the following factors in the setting of the amount of bail:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever
so required by the court. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused
when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. To fix bail at an
amount equivalent to the civil liability of which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,500,000.00) is
to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that accused
is charged of; this we cannot allow because bail is not intended as a punishment, nor as a
satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court.
The importance attached to conviction is due to the underlying principle that bail should be
granted only where it is uncertain whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and therefore, where
that uncertainty is removed by conviction it would, generally speaking, be absurd to admit to bail.
After a person has been tried and convicted the presumption of innocence which may be relied upon
in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to show error in the conviction.
From another point of view it may be properly argued that the probability of ultimate punishment is
so enhanced by the conviction that the accused is much more likely to attempt to escape if liberated
on bail than before conviction.
Petitioners bail pending appeal is reduced from P5,500,000.00 to P200,000.00.
