Section 13. All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction,
ba 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 privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Right to Bail
An information for violation of Article III, 5 (b) of
RA 7610 was filed against Lavides. Lavides filed
a motion to be Allowed Bail as a Matter of Right
under the Law on Which He is charged. 9 more
informations for child abuse were filed against
Lavides and by 3 other minor children. No bail
was recommended. Nonetheless, Lavides filed
separate applications for bail in the 9 cases. The
trial court issued an order; finding that there is
probable cause to hold the accused under
detention, his arrest having been made in
accordance with the Rules, and thus he must
therefore remain under detention until further
order of the Court; and that the accused is
entitled to bail in all the case, and that he is
granted the right to post bail in the amount of
P80,000.00 for each case or a total of
P800,000.00 for all the cases under certain
conditions.
Should the court should impose the
condition that the accused shall ensure his
presence during the trial of these cases before
the bail can be granted?
Answer:
Bail should be granted before arraignment;
otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a
motion to quash. The trial court could ensure Lavides'
presence at the arraignment precisely by granting bail
and ordering his presence at any stage of the
proceedings, such as arraignment. Under Rule 114, §2
(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the
conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear
before the proper court whenever so required by the
court or these Rules," while under Rule 116, §1(b) the
presence of the accused at the arraignment is required.
To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his
arraignment would be to place him in a position where
he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash
and thus delay his release on bail because until his
motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot
be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash
so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be
released on bail.
Lavides vs. CA
.
An Information was filed against the 3 accused
namely, de la Peña, Herodias and Go, charging
them with the murder of Galan, Sr.. Dr. Matig-a,
the physician of Go, filed a Clinical Summary on
the illness of Go who was hospitalized and
critically injured; Go filed a Petition for Bail and
was thus granted. The prosecution moved for
the reconsideration of the Order of the court, the
order which granted bail to Go. A Motion for the
Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum to produce
the records of Dr. Matig-a was filed to determine
if the medical findings on Go were not
exaggerated to prevent his arrest. Judge Gako,
Jr. issued an Order in which he denied the


You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 6 pages?
- Fall '16
- criminal law, Appellate court, Judge Donato & Salas