Rule 12-15

Preliminary investigation under rule 112- it is required when the offense charge is punishable with
imprisonment with at least 4 yrs. 2 months and 1 day, based on this we know that all offenses
cognizable by RTC and some offenses cognizable by MTC require preliminary investigation.

Proper officers recognized to conduct preliminary investigation are:

1. Provincial and city prosecutor and their assistant;

2. The national and regional state prosecutors;
3. Other office authorized by law such as legal officer of commissions on elections in election
offenses; ombudsman in offenses cognizable by sandiganbayan and proper officer of
presidential commission on good government.

Offenses that are no require preliminary investigation because they are punishable with imprisonment
of less than 4 yrs 2 mons and 1 day are instituted either by filing a complaint with prosecutor’s office or
directly with MTC.

 If the complaint is filed with prosecutor’s office- it shall make sure that the requirement of
section 3a of rule 112 are complied with and having some so, prepare and file an information
with the MTC.
 If the complaint is filed directly with MTC, it shall also inforce the requirement of section 3 rule
112 and then proceed to determine probable cause.

Preliminary investigation is defined as inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to

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

Quantum of evidence that is considered sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for
trial- probable cause.

Ocampo vs abandon- SC explained that preliminary investigation is not a casual affair, it is conducted to
protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial and

 the right to held a preliminary investigation before trial is statutory rather than constitutional.
 It is substantive right and component of due process in the administration of criminal justice.
 The SC added in the context of preliminary investigation the right of due process of law entails
the opportunity to be heard.
 It accords the respondent the opportunity to present his side with regard the accusation.
 Afterwards the investigation, investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and
defenses lead to a reasonable belief that the crime has been committed and that it was the
respondent who committed it otherwise the investigating officer is duty bound to dismiss the
complaint.
Agdefa vs ombudsman- The SC a preliminary investigation is held to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious and oppressive prosecution.

 To protect him from open public accusation of a crime as well as from the trouble, expense and
anxiety of a public trial.
 This also intended to protect the state for having to conduct a useless and expensive trial.
 while the right is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of due process in
administering criminal justice.
 A preliminary investigation is not merely formal or technical right. It is substantive right to deny
the claim of the accused with preliminary investigation is to deprived it of the full measure of
his right to due process.

Right of respondent to a Preliminary investigation:

1. The right of respondent to a preliminary investigation is a mere statutory right these rights are
limited by law and jurisprudence.
2. The respondent has no right to cross examine the complainant’s witnesses neither does he has
the right to furnish copies of the affidavits of his co respondent.
3. The only right of respondent is to submit a counter affidavit and to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant.

If the investigation officer set a hearing to profound clarificatory questions to the parties for 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 instance when although the offenses are punishable by imprisonment of at least 4 yrs 2
mons and 1 day, a preliminary investigation may be dispensed with? Yes. When a person validly
arrested without a warrant for an offense is punishable by imprisonment of 4 yrs 2 mons and 1 day, he
shall be subjected to an inquest under section 6 of rule 112 instead of preliminary investigation. 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 prosecution probable cause he shall file an information with proper court otherwise it
shall dismiss the complaint or when he is in doubt recommend the conduct of a preliminary
investigation.

Before the information is file however the person arrested may asked for preliminary investigation in
which a case it must have signed a waiver in a provision article 125 of the RPC in the presence of his
counsel. Article 125 limits the period within which the arrested person may be detain, before he is
charge in court depending the gravity of the offense for which he was arrested.

If the arrested person therefore signed a waiver in article 125, he is allowing himself to be detain
beyond the limit said under article 125 while he is undergoing preliminary investigation. The arrested
person waiver of art 125 however does not preclude him from posting bail while preliminary
investigation is being conducted. After the information is file in court without preliminary investigation
the accused may within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing file with the court a motion for
preliminary investigation.

2015 estrada vs ombudsman- the SC listed 4 instances when probable cause may be established:

1. For the filing by the prosecutor of the information after the PI;
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 search warrant.

In gudjungan jr vs dela cruz- SC rules that the right of PI is not a constitutional right but merely right
conferred by the statute. The absence PI does not impair the validity of information or otherwise render
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 PI does not render the information invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the
case, then the denial of motion for investigation cannot likewise invalidate the information or oust the
court of jurisdiction over the case. In its resolution following the investigation-the prosecution may
dismiss the complaint or order the filing of the information with the proper court against the
respondent.

What is remedy of party aggrieved by the resolution of the prosecution office? 2 remedy.

1. Within 10 days from its receipt of the adverse resolution, he may file a motion for
reconsideration with the prosecution office, copy furnished with the adverse party.

2. within 15 days from its receipt of the adverse resolution or the order of the prosecution
office denying its motion for reconsideration, the aggrieve party may file a petition for review with
secretary of justice. A party may file only one motion for reconsideration.

 The filing a petition for review with the secretary of justice shall not hold the filing of the
corresponding information in the court on the basis of the finding of probable cause on the
appeal of resolution.
 A respondent file a petition to review of the adverse resolution with secretary of justice, may
move 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 has already been arraigned, the sec of
justice shall no longer give due course for the petition for review filed by the accused.

What is remedy of an accused if the PI is case was attended with considerable delay, thereby causing
him grave prejudice? Should he invoke his right of speedy trial under sec 9 of rule 119? Or should he
invoke his right of speedy disposition of cases under 16 article 3 of 1987 constitution? As ruled upon
2018 magante vs sandiganbayan, the accused may move the dismissal of the case on the ground of
inordinate delay in the disposition of the case thereby violating sec 16 article 3 of constitution which
provide “all person shall have the right to speedy disposition of the cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial or administrative bodies.”

The SC gave us a hold marks in ordered inordinate delay as the ground of dismissal of the case. The
right of speedy disposition of case is deemed violated only:
 1. when the proceeding is attended by vexatious capricious and oppressive delay or an unjustified
postponement of proceeding are asked for or granted or
2. when without just or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed a lapse without the
proceeding making any progress.

Upon the filing of information with RTC what is the duty of the judge? Sec 5 of rile 112 that within 10
from the filing of 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 it has already been
determined by the prosecutor’s office before it file the information? Remember that there are 2 kinds
of determination of probable cause.

1. The first kind is executive determination of probable cause which is perform by the prosecution
office which is under the executive department. Its purpose is to determine whether to file the
information or to dismiss the complaint.
2. The second kind is judicial determination of probable cause perform by the judge so he will
know whether to issue a warrant of arrest or to dismiss the case. Before the accused gets a cue
that the court is about to issue a warrant of arrest, he will try to preempt his arrest by filing a
judicial determination for probable cause since this motion is allowed, the court usually set a
motion for hearing and give the prosecution a period within which to file his comment. In the
meantime, the court shall hold the issuance of the warrant sometimes for week giving the
accused time to either to find a way to prevent the issuance of the warrant or prepare his bail.
This practice or malpractice is now prescribed by the revised guidelines for continues trial in
criminal cases under administrative matter no 15-06-10-SC. In revised guidelines a motion for
judicial determination of probable cause is the first in the list of prohibited motion which the
court any deny outright without requiring the prosecution to comment.

There is no need for the accused to file 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 abandon- the SC rule although the constitution provides that probable cause shall be
determine by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses. A hearing is not necessary 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 of warrant of arrest. It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the
prosecutors report and supporting document showing the existence of probable cause for the
inditement or if on the basis of his evaluation he finds no probable cause to disregard the prosecutor’s
resolution and require the submission of additional affidavit of witnesses to aid him in determining its
existence.

Hao vs people- the SC shine a light on the distinction between the probable cause with the issuance of
warrant of arrest and probable cause for the filing of information. Probable for the issuance of warrant
of arrest is the existence of such fact and circumstances that will lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
person to belief 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 the proper
criminal information. Probable cause for warrant arrest is determine to address the necessity of placing
the accuse under custody in order not to frustrate the end of justice.

Judicial determination of probable cause upon the filing of information- if the RTC 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 an offense that did not require PI but is not
covered by the rule on summary procedure- the judge shall comply with the procedure laid down in sec
3a of rule 112 and then proceed to determine the probable cause. If the judge finds no probable cause
he shall dismiss the case.

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

If the information or complaint within the MTC is for an offense covered by the rule on summary
procedure- the judge shall comply the procedure set forth in sec 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 accuse failed
to appear in court when required to do so.

To summarized, when is the issuance of warrant of arrest mandatory? When is it discretionary? When
is it prohibited?

The issuance of warrant of arrest is mandatory when the offense charge is punishable of
imprisonment of at least 4 yrs. 2 mons and 1 day and the judge find probable cause.

The issuance of warrant of arrest is discretionary when the offense charge is punishable by
imprisonment of less than 4 yrs. 2 mons and 1 day but is not covered by the revised rule on summary
procedure because it is punishable of imprisonment of more than 6 mons and the judge finds probable
cause.

The issuance of warrant of arrest is prohibited when the offense charge is covered by the rule on
summary procedure even if the judge finds probable cause.

Rule 113- arrest

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

2 ways by which an arrest may be made:

1. Actual restrain of a person to be arrested;

 2. By a person’s voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. Thus
application of actual force manually touching of the body, physical restrain or formal declaration
of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties
to arrest the other and the intend of the other to submit under the belief under the impression
that the submission is necessary.

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

There are 5 instance when a valid warrantless arrest may be made:

1. When in the present of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime. (arrest in flagrante delicto under sec 5a
rule 113.
a. An arrest in flagrante delicto requires 2 elements:
i. The person to be arrest must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing or he is attempting to commit a crime;
ii. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

People vs adriano: SC declare that the buy bust operation is a form of entrapment in which the violator
is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officer conducting the operation are not only authorized but
duty bound to apprehend the violator and search him of anything that may have been part or used in
the commission of the 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 plane view of the
arresting officer.

People vs marcelo- the accused was validly arrested without a warrant after he was caught
exchanging the shabu in his possession for the marked money of the poseur buyer. Having been
caught in flagrante delicto the police officer was not only authorized but were even duty bound to
arrest her even without warrant.

Sances vs people- the SC ruled that there was no valid in flagrante delicto arrest. No overt physical
act could be attributed to such as to arose suspicious in the mind of the police operative that he had
just committed was committing or was about to commit a crime. When sances was arrested by the
police operative he was merely living the residence of the known drug peddler and boarding a
tricycle. Such acts cannot be considered as overt act indicating that sances has just committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime.

People vs Andaya- the SC declared the warrantless arrest of the accused has illegal since none of
the arresting officer saw the commission of the crime. A confidential informant was not a police man
was designated to the poseur buyer. The arresting officer were positioned at the place where they
could not see what the poseur and the accused were doing. When they arrested the accused upon
the pre arrange 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. Second instance where valid warrantless arrest may be made. Which is when an offense had
just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to belief based on personal
 knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. This kind
of warrantless of arrest is called hot pursuit under section 5 paragraph b of rule 113.

Hot pursuit arrest requires the presence of 2 elements:

1. An offense has just been committed; (there must be a close proximity in time between the
commission of the offense 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 illegal. The arresting officer
must secure a warrant of arrest).
2. The arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime; (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 requirement of probable cause makes the warrantless arrest
reasonable for purposes of compliance with the constitutional mandate against unreasonable
arrest).

Difference between hot pursuit and in flagrante delicto: the hot pursuit arrest the crime is not
committed in the arresting officer presence. The in flagrante delicto the crime is committed in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

Pestillos vs generoso- illustrate the 2 element required for a hot pursuit arrest. Upon the complaint of
atty. Generoso of his alleged mulling, the arresting officer went to the scene of the crime arriving there 1
hour after the alleged maling. Atty. Generoso told the arresting officer that he was mauled in the
neighborhood where he and the 3 perpetrator reside. Atty generoso positively it identified the 3 person
who mauled him. When the police officer confronted these persons they did not deny what they did
although they told a different version of the story with these facts and circumstances the police officer
gathered and which they personally observed less than 1 hour from the time that they have arrived at
the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the accused it is reasonable to conclude that the
police officer had a personal knowledge of facts or circumstances to justify their warrantless arrest to
the accuse. This circumstances well within the police officers’ observation perception and evaluation at
the time of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police officer personal observation which is
within their personal knowledge prompting them to make the warrantless arrest.

People vs Villareal- the SC held that the arresting officers’ personal knowledge of the past personal
record of the person to be arrest is insufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.

To interpret personal knowledge as the police officer’s knowledge of a person reputation or past
criminal citation would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power
of the police officer to effect warrantless arrest based solely on knowledge of a person’s previous
criminal infractions rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid down under section 5 par b of
rule113.

3. The third instance where a valid warrantless arrest may be made is when the person to be
arrested is a prisoner who has escape from penal establishment or a place where he is serving a
final judgment or temporary confine while his case is pending or has escape while being
transferred from one confinement to another. (the rationale behind this rule under section 5c
 rule 113 is that an escapee is actually in the act of committing the crime which is evasion of
sentence.
4. Section 13 rule 113- if a person lawfully arrested escape or is rescued any person may
immediately pursue or retaking without a warrant at any time and any place within the
Philippines.
5. Second paragraph section 23 rule 114- an accused release on bail who attempt to depart from
the Philippines without permission from the court where is case is pending may be validly
arrested without a warrant.

Bail under rule 114

Section 1 rule 114 define bail as a security given for the release of the person in the custody of the law
furnished by him or a bondsman to guarantee his appearance before any court.

David vs agbay- explain the distinction between the phrase custody of the law and the phrase
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the law- it is required before the court can act
upon the application for bail but it is not required for the adjudication other relief sought by the
defendant where 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 accomplice either by a res or voluntary
surrender. Jurisdiction over 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 is arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant
on the other hand one can be subject of the jurisdiction of the court over his person and yet not yet in
the custody of the law such as when the accused escape custody after his trial has commence. Being in
the custody of the law signify restrain 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 a custody over the
body of the accused, it includes but 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 on every person the right to bail, section 13 article 3 of 1987 constitution provides that all
person except those charge punishable by reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong shall
before conviction be bailable by sufficient surety or be release on recognizance as may be provided by
law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Laviste vs ca- the SC illuminate bails essential purpose- bail is the answer to the criminal justice system
to a vexing question, what is to be done to the accused whose guilt has not yet been proven in the
uncertain interval often years’ law between arrest and final adjudication. Bail acts as a reconciling
mechanism to accommodate both the accused, and accused interest in pretrial liberty and society
interest in assuring the accused presence at the trial.

When is a bail a matter of right? It is a matter of right before or after conviction by the MTC or before
conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

The instances mentioned when bail is a matter of right, may the court deny bail to an accused on the
ground that he is a flight risk or likely to commit another crime if release on bail or that he is a
recidivist or habitual delinquent? 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 bail is a matter of right is to increase the amount of the bail but even that discretion is
limited. The constitution itself prohibits court from requiring excessive bail.

Instances when bail is a matter of discretion. Bail is discretionary when:

1. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by death, reclusion Perpetua or life
imprisonment.
2. Upon conviction by RTC of the accuse of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion Perpetua
or life imprisonment.

Section 7 rule 114 pertains to the first instance when bail is discretionary. It provides that no person
charge with an offense punishable death, reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment shall be admitted to
bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.

From now on let us refer for the offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
as non-bailable offenses. For the court to properly deny an accused charge with a non-bailable offense.
It must be shown first that the evidence against him is strong.

How will the court determine whether the evidence against the accused is strong or not? Which party
has the burden of proving that the evidence is strong or that the evidence is not strong? The supreme
court addresses these cases, Villanueva vs buaya- the SC declare that the bail hearing in petition to bail
is indispensable or bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or denial of bail hinges to the issue of whether
or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong and the determination of whether the evidence
is strong is a matter of judicial discretion. A judge’s discretion does not lay whether to hold a hearing or
not as it should always be held but in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the prosecution’s
evidence of guilt against the accused.

Idacal vs infant- the SC made it clear that the hearing upon notice is mandatory before the grant of bail.
This is especially true in the prosecution of non-bailable offenses even if the accused did not file an
application for bail and even if the public prosecutor had recommended for bail, a hearing should still
be held. The public prosecutors’ recommendation that the accused be granted bail or his non opposition
to the grant of bail could not be a reason to dispense with the bail hearing.

gacad vs clapis- the SC instruct when it declare that at the hearing of application for bail filed by the
person who is in custody for the commission of non-bailable offense, the prosecution has burden to
show that the evidence of guilt is strong. These rule presupposes that first an application for bail was
made and second the judge notify the prosecutor and conducted bail hearing for the prosecution to
adduced evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

SC furthermore held that the respondent judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and the
rules when he granted bail to the accused charge with murder without conducting a hearing and despite
the absence of petition for bail filed by the accused. The court emphasized that bail cannot be allowed
to a person charge with capital offense or an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment without a hearing upon notice to the prosecution otherwise a violation of due process is
committed.
Second instance when bail is discretionary- Upon conviction by RTC of the accuse of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

since bail in this instance is discretionary it must necessarily be applied for.

With what court should the accused file his petition for bail, should he file it with RTC which render
the judgment or should he file it to the appellate court?

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

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

(sir notice that the rule does not cover a situation for a judgment of conviction was render by
RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and the penalty impose is imprisonment is not more than
6 years. Since it is after conviction by RTC I assume bail is discretionary. As to how should the court
exercise its discretion, the rules as well as the jurisprudence are silent)

Upon conviction, the RTC impose penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not death, reclusion
Perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is discretionary.

Section 5 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 such as:

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

NOTE: any of the 5 bail negating circumstances is shown to exist, the court has no choice but to deny
bail. In these instance Bail is not discretionary but is prohibited hence Prohibited bail.

If the prosecution fails to show that any of the bail negating circumstances exist, then the court may
grant or deny the bail. This is the instances where bail is really a discretionary. To emphasized even if no
bail negating circumstance is shown to exist the court in the exercise of its discretion may still deny bail.

Que vs people- the SC declare that pursuant to tough on bail pending appeal policy, the present of bail
negating conditions mandates the denial or revocation of bail pending appeal. If any of these
circumstance is present- it is as if the accused has been convicted of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion Perpetua, or life imprisonment where bail is prohibited. The SC enjoin trial court that in the
exercise of their discretion they should be guided by fundamental principle that the allowance of bail
pending appeal should be exercise not with laxity but with grave caution and only with strong reasons
considering that the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court.
Leviste vs CA- the SC held that if the RTC upon conviction of the accused imposed penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not death, reclusion perpertua or life imprisonment- bail becomes
a matter of discretion.

If during the bail hearing prosecution failed to show that any of bail negating circumstances
mentioned in the 3rd par of section 5 rule 114 is present- the court in the exercise of sound discretion
may grant or deny bail. An application of bail pending appeal may be denied even if none of the bail
negating circumstances is present. On the other hand, if the court in the exercise of its in stringent
discretion, determines that any of the bail negating circumstances exist, the court has no other option
except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal.

May an accused have been convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment be granted bail? NO. he has been convicted of a non-bailable offense and the evidence
against him is demonstrably strong as his guilt has already been established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

REMEMBER: the accused is charge but has not been convicted of an offense punishable death reclusion
Perpetua or life imprisonment is no longer illegible for bail if the evidence of guilt is strong, how much
more if he has already been convicted of a non-bailable offense.

May an accused who has been convicted of any offense punishable of imprisonment under a final and
executory judgment be admitted to bail? NO. as the accused would start serving sentence already. Bail
is granted only for the provisional liberty of the accused during the trial of the case but before he is
convicted under a final judgment.

Where should bail be filed: the first rule is that the accused shall file his bail with the court where his
case is pending, in the absence or unavailability of the judge of 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 the place other than where his case is pending he may file his bail with any
RTC of said place.

If no RTC judge is available in the place where the accused is arrested- he may file his bail with any
MTC judge of said place.

If the grant of bail is a matter of discretion or the accused seeks to be release on recognizance - he
could only file his bail with the court where his cases is pending. A person has been arrested but has not
been charge in court may apply for bail with any court of the place where he is detained.

Forfeiture and cancellation of bail

A distinction of forfeiture of bail and cancellation of bail

 Bail is forfeited when the accused violates any of the condition of his bail.
 Bail is cancelled when it is no longer needed.

When an accused is admitted to bail he is bound by certain condition attached to his bail. One of the
more onerous conditions of the bail is for the accused to appear in court when ordered to do so.
 Relate this to the constitutional right of the accuse to be present any stage of the trial of his case. Since
it is the right of the accused, he may waive it by not appearing in court without being penalized for it.

There is time when the court ordered the accused to appear in court such as when he is identified by
the prosecution witnesses or when he is to be arraign.

When the accused fails to appearing court without valid cause despite being order 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? Bails is granted to the provisional liberty
of an accused while he is undergoing trial, with this in mind, bail is no longer needed and is deemed
automatically cancelled:

1. when the accused is acquitted or;

2. the accused dies or
3. when the case against him is dismissed or;
4. when he is to serve sentence under a final judgment of conviction.

When bail is cancelled- it is return to the bondsman or the accused.

An accused was applied for or has been admitted to bail is not bared from questioning the validity of his
arrest or the legality of the warrant of arrest against him. Moreover, he may still assail the regularity or
the absence of preliminary investigation of the charge against him. The accused may still do all of these
provided he has entered his plea.

Right of the accused under rule 115

Except for one, all the right of the accused under rule 115 is a constitutional right. Under section 14
article 3 of 1987 constitution.

1. The most consequential right of the accused is the right to be presume innocence until the
contrary is prove beyond reasonable doubt.

2014 people vs estebal- the SC said that almost everything worth knowing about this right of the
accused to be presume innocent. An accused in his favor the presumption of innocence which the bill of
right guaranteed unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted.

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 charge.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for
the offense charged.

2 kinds of presumption:

1. Conclusive presumption- always presumption to be true.

2. Disputable presumption- the presumption may be proved otherwise.
What may the party prejudiced by the presumption may do? The party must prove that the
presumption is not true.

The guiding principle is that it would be better to set free 10 men who might be guilty than to convict
one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

2. Second right of the accused under rule 115 is the right to be inform of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.

Patula vs people- the SC enjoin the prosecution to never take for granted the importance of properly
alleging in the information the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.

An accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the information. To convict
him of an offense other than that charge in the information would be a violation of his constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

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

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

If the accused is unable to attend a hearing due to 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.

4. The 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 takes the witness stand- he is opening himself to
cross examination by the prosecution unless the defense counsel is absolutely sure of his client
innocence, he should not even think of placing him in the witness stand. No adverse conclusion
could be drawn from the accused failure to take the witness stand.
5. The 5th right of the accused is not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. Not confuse
of this right of the accused with the right of the witness any witness against self-incrimination.

The right of the witness against self-incrimination is his right not to answer a question which may
subject him to a penalty of an offense. An accused may have refused a witness stand by invoking his
right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.

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

People vs heldad- it was held that the taking of paraffin test on the hand of the accused does not violate
his right against self-incrimination. This constitutional prohibits only testimonial compulsion and not
examination of the body of the accused. Requiring the accused to perform purely mechanical act or
taking some fluid from his body to be tested are not included in the prohibition as the accused thereby
compelled to speak his guilt.
 6. 6th right of the accused is to confront and cross examine the witness against him. This right of
an accused has 2-fold purpose:
1. it affords the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witnesses against him by cross
examination which is valuable instrument in exposing falsehood and bring 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 insures that the witness will give his testimony under oath. thus
deterring lying by the treat of perjury charge.

7. 7th right of the accused is to have compulsory 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 asked the court to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses.

Subpoena is effective way of compelling a person to testify in court whether he likes it or not.

8. 8th right of the accused is to have speedy, impartial and public trial- in a case file of a tv
network to be allowed to cover the maguindanao massacre trial the SC said that the right of an
accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free-press that the pervasive publicity is not per se
prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial and that there must be allegation and proof of
impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias pre-decision. Mere fear possible of undue influence
is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in deprivation to a right of a fair trial.
9. Last right of an accused is to appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribe by law. In
criminal cases the right of the accused to appeal is constitutional right while in civil cases the
right of the parties to appeal is a mere statutory right.