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