Right to Bail

Rights of the Accused Right to Bail

People vs. Donato RTC Branch XII Manila

June 5, 1991

[G.R. No. 79269. June 5,1991.] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PROCORO J. DONATO, in his official capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch XII, Manila; RODOLFO C. SALAS, alias Commander Bilog, respondents. PETITION for certiorari and prohibition to review the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XII Donato, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Jose Suarez, Romeo Capulong, Efren Mercado and Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity, Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) for Rodolfo Salas. DAVIDE, JR., J.: The People of the Philippines, through the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, the City Fiscal of Manila and the Judge a Advocate General, filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for restraining order/ preliminary injunction, to set aside the order of respondent Judge dated July 7, 1987 granting bail to the accused Rodolfo Salas alias "Commander Bilog" in Criminal Case No. 86-48926 for Rebellion, 1 and the subsequent Order dated July 30, 1987 granting the motion for reconsideration of 16 July 1987 by increasing the bail bond from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 but denying petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration of July 17, 1987 which asked the court to allow petitioner to present evidence in support of its prayer for a reconsideration of the order of 7 July 1987. The pivotal issues presented before Us are whether the right to bail may, under certain circumstances, be denied to a person who is charged with an otherwise bailable offense, and whether such right may be waived. The following are the antecedents of this petition: In the original Information 2 filed on 2 October 1986 in Criminal Case No. 86-48926 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, later amended in an Amended Information 3 which was filed on 24 October 1986, private respondent Rodolfo Salas, alias "Commander Bilog", and his co-accused were charged for the crime of rebellion under Article 134, in relation to Article 135, of the Revised Penal Code allegedly committed as follows: "That in or about 1968 and for some time before said year and continuously thereafter until the present time, in the City of Manila and elsewhere in the Philippines, the Communist Party of the Philippines, its military arm, the New People's Army, its mass infiltration network, the National Democratic Front with its other subordinate organizations and fronts, have, under the direction and control of said

organizations' leaders, among whom are the aforenamed accused, and with the aid, participation or support of members and followers whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown, risen publicly and taken arms throughout the country against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines for the purpose of overthrowing the present Government, the seat of which is in the City of Manila, or of removing from the allegiance to that government and its laws, the country's territory or part of it; That from 1970 to the present, the above-named accused in their capacities as leaders of the aforenamed organizations, in conspiracy with, and in support of the cause of, the organizations aforementioned, engaged themselves in war against the forces of the government, destroying property or committing serious violence, and other acts in the pursuit of their unlawful purpose, such as . . . ." (then follows the enumeration of specific acts committed before and after February 1986). At the time the Information was filed the private respondent and his co-accused were in military custody following their arrest on 29 September 1986 at the Philippine General Hospital, Taft Ave., Manila; he had earlier escaped from military detention and a cash reward of P250,000.00 was offered for his capture. 4 A day after the filing of the original information, or on 3 October 1986, a petition for habeas corpus for private respondent and his co-accused was filed with this Court 5 which, as shall hereafter be discussed in detail, was dismissed in Our resolution of 16 October 1986 on the basis of the agreement of the parties under which herein private respondent "will remain in legal custody and will face trial before the court having custody over his person" and the warrants for the arrest of his co-accused are deemed recalled and they shall be immediately released but shall submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their person. On November 7, 1986, private respondent filed with the court below a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that: (a) the facts alleged do not constitute an offense; (b) the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants; and (d) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished,6 to which petitioner filed an Opposition 7 citing, among other grounds, the fact that in the Joint Manifestation and Motion dated October 14, 1986, in G.R. No. 76009, private respondent categorically conceded that: xxx

xxx

xxx

"Par. 2 (b) - Petitioner Rodolfo Salas will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person." In his Order of March 6, 1987, 8 respondent Judge denied the motion to quash. Instead of asking for a reconsideration of said Order, private respondent filed on 9 May 1987 a petition for bail, 9 which herein petitioner opposed in an Opposition filed on 27 May 1987 10 on the ground that since rebellion became a capital offense under the provisions of P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834, which amended Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death

on those who promote, maintain, or head a rebellion, the accused is no longer entitled to bail as evidence of his guilt is strong. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No. 187 repealing, among others, P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. Thus, the original penalty for rebellion, prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.00, was restored. Executive Order No. 187 was published in the Official Gazette in its June 15, 1987 issue (Vol. 83, No. 24) which was officially released for circulation on June 26, 1987. In his Order of 7 July 1987 11 respondent Judge, taking into consideration Executive Order No. 187, granted private respondent's petition for bail, fixed the bail bond at P30,000.00 and imposed upon private respondent the additional condition that he shall report to the court once every two (2) months within the first ten (10) days of every period thereof. In granting the petition respondent Judge stated: ". . . There is no more debate that with the effectivity of Executive Order No. 187, the offense of rebellion, for which accused Rodolfo Salas is herein charged, is now punishable with the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00, which makes it now bailable pursuant to Section 13, Article III, 1986 Constitution and Section 3, Rule 114, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Unlike the old rule, bail is now a matter of right in non-capital offenses before final judgment. This is very evident upon a reading of Section 3, Rule 114, aforementioned, in relation to Section 21, same rule. In view, therefore, of the present circumstances in this case, said accused-applicant is now entitled to bail as a matter of right inasmuch as the crime of rebellion ceased to be a capital offense." As to the contention of herein petitioner that it would be dangerous to grant bail to private respondent considering his stature in the CPP-NPA hierarchy, whose ultimate and overriding goal is to wipe out all vestiges of our democracy and to replace it with their ideology, and that his release would allow his return to his organization to direct its armed struggle to topple the government before whose courts he invokes his constitutional right to bail, respondent Judge replied: "True, there now appears a clash between the accused's constitutional right to bail in a non-capital offense, which right is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and, to quote again the prosecution, 'the existence of the government that bestows the right, the paramount interest of the state.' Suffice to state that the Bill of Rights, one of which is the right to bail, is a 'declaration of the rights of the individual, civil, political and social and economic, guaranteed by the Constitution against impairment or intrusion by any form of governmental action. Emphasis is placed on the dignity of man and the worth of individual. There is recognition of certain inherent and inalienable rights of the individual, which the government is prohibited from violating' (Quisumbing-Fernando, Philippine Constitutional Law, 1984 Edition, p. 77). To this Court, in case of such conflict as now pictured by the prosecution, the same should be resolved in favor of the individual who, in the eyes of the law, is alone in the assertion of his rights under the Bill of Rights as against the State. Anyway, the government is that powerful and strong, having the resources, manpower and the wherewithals to fight those 'who oppose, threaten (sic) and destroy a just and orderly society and its existing civil and political institutions.' The prosecution's fear

may or may not be founded that the accused may later on jump bail and rejoin his comrades in the field to sow further disorders and anarchy against the duly constituted authorities. But, then, such a fear can not be a reason to deny him bail. For the law is very explicit that when it comes to bailable offenses an accused is entitled as a matter of right to bail. Dura est lex sed lex." In a motion to reconsider 12 the above order filed on 16 July 1987, petitioner asked the court to increase the bail from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00 alleging therein that per Department of Justice Circular No. 10 dated 3 July 1987, the bail for the provisional release of an accused should be in an amount computed at P10,000.00 per year of imprisonment based on the medium penalty imposable for the offense and explaining that it is recommending P100,000.00 because the private respondent "had in the past escaped from the custody of the military authorities and the offense for which he is charged is not an ordinary crime, like murder, homicide or robbery, where after the commission, the perpetrator has achieved his end" and that "the rebellious acts are not consummated until the well-organized plan to overthrow the government through armed struggle and replace it with an alien system based on a foreign ideology is attained." On 17 July 1987, petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration 13 indirectly asking the court to deny bail to the private respondent and to allow it to present evidence in support thereof considering the "inevitable probability that the accused will not comply with this main condition of his bail - to appear in court for trial," a conclusion it claims to be buttressed "by the following facts which are widely known by the People of the Philippines and which this Honorable Court may have judicial notice of: 1. The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from detention when arrested; 2. He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address; 3. He was using the false name "Manuel Mercado Castro" at the time of his arrest and presented a Driver's License to substantiate his false identity; 4. The address he gave "Panamitan, Kawit, Cavite," turned out to be also a false address; 5. He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose identity and address were also found to be false; 6. Pursuant to Ministry Order No. 1-A dated 11 January 1982,a reward of P250,000.00 was offered and paid for his arrest," which "clearly indicate that the accused does not entertain the slightest intention to appear in court for trial, if released." Petitioner further argues that the accused, who is the Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines and head of its military arm, the NPA, together with his followers, are now engaged in an open warfare and rebellion against this government and threatens the existence of this very Court from which he now seeks provisional release," and that while he is entitled to bail as a matter of right in view of Executive Order No. 187 which restored the original penalty for rebellion under Article

135 of the Revised Penal Code, yet, when the interest of the State conflicts with that of an individual, that of the former prevails for "the right of the State of self-preservation is paramount to any of the rights of an individual enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution." Petitioner further invokes precedents in the United States of America holding "that there is no absolute constitutional barrier to detention of potentially dangerous resident aliens pending deportation proceedings, 14 and that an arrestee may be incarcerated until trial as he presents a risk of flight;15 and sustaining a detention prior to trial of arrestee charged with serious felonies who are found after an adversary hearing to pose threat to the safety of individuals and to the community which no condition of release can dispel."16 On 30 July 1987 respondent Judge handed down the Orders 17 adverted to in the introductory portion of this decision the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the 'supplemental' motion for reconsideration to be without merit and hereby denies it but finds the first motion for reconsideration to be meritorious only insofar as the amount of bail is concerned and hereby reconsiders its Order of July 7, 1987 only to increase the amount of bail from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, subject to the approval of this Court, and with the additional condition that accused Rodolfo Salas shall report to the court once every two (2) months within the first ten (10) days of every period thereof (Almendras vs. Villaluz, et al., L-31665, August 6, 1975, 66 SCRA 58)." In denying the supplemental motion for reconsideration the respondent Judge took into account the "sudden turn-about" on the part of the petitioner in that a day earlier it filed a motion for reconsideration wherein it conceded the right of the private respondent to bail but merely asked to increase the amount of bail; observed that it is only a reiteration of arguments in its opposition to the petition for bail of 25 May 1987; asserted that the American precedents are not applicable since the cases involved deportation of aliens and, moreover, the U.S. Federal Constitution does not contain a proviso on the right of an accused to bail in bailable offenses, but only an injunction against excessive bail; and quoted the concurring opinion of the late Justice Pedro Tuason in the cases of Nava, et al. vs. Gatmaitan, L-4853, Hernandez vs. Montesa, L-4964 and Angeles vs. Abaya, L-5108, October 11, 1951, 90 Phil. 172. Unable to agree with said Order, petitioner commenced this petition submitting therein the following issues: "THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE PROCORO J. DONATO ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION, AND IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE PREVAILING REALITIES, WHEN HE DENIED PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH PRAYER TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO THE GRANT OF BAIL TO THE RESPONDENT RODOLFO SALAS. THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE PROCORO J. DONATO ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION WHEN HE GRANTED BAIL TO THE RESPONDENT RODOLFO SALAS."

in support of which petitioner argues that private respondent is stopped from invoking his right to bail, having expressly waived it in G.R. No. 76009 when he agreed to "remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody of his person" in consideration of the recall of the warrant of arrest for his co-petitioners Josefina Cruz and Jose Concepcion; and the right to bail, even in non-capital offenses, is not absolute when there is prima facie evidence that the accused is a serious threat to the very existence of the State, in which case the prosecution must be allowed to present evidence for the denial of bail. Consequently, respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he did not allow petitioner to present all the evidence it may desire to support its prayer for the denial of bail and when he declared that the State has forfeited its right to do so since during all the time that the petition for bail was pending, it never manifested, much less hinted, its intention to adduce such evidence. And that even if release on bail may be allowed, respondent judge, in fixing the amount of bail at P50,000.00 (originally P30,000.00 only), failed to take into account the lengthy record of private respondents' criminal background, the gravity of the pending charge, and the likelihood of flight.18 In Our resolution of 11 August 1987 19 We required the respondents to comment on the petition and issued a Temporary Restraining Order ordering respondent Judge to cease and desist from implementing his order of 30 July 1987 granting bail to private respondent in the amount of P50,000.00. In his Comment filed on 27 August 1987, 20 private respondent asks for the outright dismissal of the petition and immediate lifting of the temporary restraining order on the following grounds: RESPONDENT SALAS NEVER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BAIL; NEITHER IS HE ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING SAID RIGHT. ON THE CONTRARY IT IS PETITIONER WHO IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING THE SAID ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. II RESPONDENT SALAS ENJOYS NOT ONLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT BUT ALSO THE RIGHT TO BAIL. III RESPONDENT SALAS IS NOT CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL OFFENSE (RECLUSION PERPETUA), HENCE HE HAS THE RIGHT TO BAIL AS MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION. IV THE ORDER OF JULY 30, 1987 DENYING PETITIONER OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IS CORRECT. PETITIONER'S ALLEGED RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IS NONEXISTENT AND/OR HAD BEEN WAIVED. V THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN THIS CASE VIOLATES NOT ONLY RESPONDENT SALAS' RIGHT TO BAIL BUT ALSO HIS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

We required the petitioner to reply to the comment of private respondent. 21 The reply was filed on 18 September 1987. 22 In Our resolution of 15 October 1987 23 We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file simultaneously their memoranda within twenty days from notice. In their respective manifestations and motions dated 5 November 24 and 23 November 1987 25 petitioner and private respondents asked to be excused from filing their Memoranda and that the petition and reply be considered as the Memorandum for petitioner and the Comment as the Memorandum for private respondent, which We granted in Our resolutions of 19 November 1987 26 and 1 December 1987, 27 respectively. In Our resolution of 14 September 1989 We required the Solicitor General to express his stand on the issues raised in this petition, 28 which he complied with by filing his Manifestation on 30 May 1990 29 wherein he manifests that he supports the petition and submits that the Order of respondent Judge of July 7, July 17 and July 30, 1987 should be annulled and set aside asserting that private respondent had waived the right to bail in view of the agreement in G.R. No. 76009; that granting bail to him is accepting wide-eyed his undertaking which he is sure to break; in determining bail, the primary consideration is to insure the attendance of the accused at the trial of the case against him, which would be frustrated by the "almost certainty that respondent Salas will jump bail of whatever amount"; and application of the guidelines provided for in Section 10 of Rule 114, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure on the amount of bail dictates denial of bail to private respondent. The Solicitor General likewise maintains that the right of the petitioner to hearing on the application of private respondent for bail cannot be denied by respondent Judge. And now on the issues presented in this case. I. Unquestionably, at the time the original and the amended Informations for rebellion and the application for bail were filed before the court below the penalty imposable for the offense for which the private respondent was charged was reclusion perpetua to death. During the pendency of the application for bail Executive Order No. 187 was issued by the President, by virtue of which the penalty for rebellion as originally provided for in Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code was restored. The restored law was the governing law at the time the respondent court resolved the petition for bail. 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. 30 It is, therefore, a bailable offense under Section 13 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides thus: "Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on

recognizance as may be prescribed 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." Section 3, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended, also provides: "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." 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. 31 To that extent the right is absolute. 32 And so, in a similar case for rebellion, People vs. Hernandez, et al., 99 Phil. 515, despite the fact that the accused was already convicted, although erroneously, by the trial court for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murders, arsons and robberies, and sentenced to life imprisonment, We granted bail in the amount of P30,000.00 during the pendency of his appeal from such conviction. To the vigorous stand of the People that We must deny bail to the accused because the security of the State so requires, and because the judgment of conviction appealed from indicates that the evidence of guilt of Hernandez is strong, We held: "x x x Furthermore, individual freedom is too basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state, like ours, to be derived upon mere general principles and abstract consideration of public safety. Indeed, the preservation of liberty is such a major preoccupation of our political system that, not satisfied with guaranteeing its enjoyment in the very first paragraph of section (1) of the Bill of Rights, the framers of our Constitution devoted paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), and (21) of said section (1) to the protection of several aspects of freedom." 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. This overturns the Court's ruling in Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile, et al., supra., to wit: "The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must, indeed, carry with it the suspension of the right to bail, if the government's campaign to suppress the rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered effective. If the right to bail may be demanded during the continuance of the rebellion, and those arrested, captured and detained in the course thereof will be released, they would, without the least doubt, rejoin their comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing the success of government efforts to bring to an end the invasion, rebellion or insurrection." 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. 33 But once it is determined that the evidence of

guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right. In Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons, supra., We held: "The provision on bail in our Constitution is patterned after similar provisions contained in the Constitution of the United States and that of many states of the Union. And it is said that: 'The Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the many states provide that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great, and, under such provisions, bail is a matter of right which no court or judge can properly refuse, in all cases not embraced in the exceptions. Under such provisions bail is a matter of right even in cases of capital offenses, unless the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption thereof is great!" 34 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. 35 We agree, however, with petitioner that it was error for the respondent court to fix the bond at P30,000.00, then later at P50,000.00 without hearing the prosecution. The guidelines for the fixing of the amount of bail provided for in Section 10 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court are not matters left entirely to the discretion of the court. As We stated in People vs. Dacudao, et al., 170 SCRA, 489, 495: "Certain guidelines in the fixing of a bailbond call for the presentation of evidence and reasonable opportunity for the prosecution to refute it. Among them are the nature and circumstances of the crime, character and reputation of the accused, the weight of the evidence against him, the probability of the accused appearing at the trial, whether or not the accused is a fugitive from justice, and whether or not the accused is under bond in other case . . . ." In the instant case petitioner has sufficiently made out allegations which necessitate a grant of an opportunity to be heard for the purpose of determining the amount of bail, but not for the denial thereof because aforesaid Section 10 of Rule 114 does not authorize any court to deny bail. II. It must, however, be stressed that under the present state of the law, rebellion is no longer punishable by prision mayor and fine not exceeding P20,000.00. Republic Act No. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990 and which took effect after publication in at least two newspapers of general circulation, amended, among others, Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code by increasing the penalty for rebellion such that, as amended, it now reads: "Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. - Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

"Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua." xxx

xxx

xxx

This amendatory law cannot apply to the private respondent for acts allegedly committed prior to its effectivity. It is not favorable to him. "Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same." 36 III. We agree with Petitioner that private respondent has, however, waived his right to bail in G.R. No. 76009. On 3 October 1986, or the day following the filing of the original information in Criminal Case No. 8648926 with the trial court, a petition for habeas corpus for herein private respondent, and his coaccused Josefina Cruz and Jose Concepcion, was filed with this Court by Lucia Cruz, Aida Concepcion Paniza and Beatriz Salas against Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fidel Ramos, Brig. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. Ramon Montaño, and Col. Saldajeno praying, among others, that the petition be given due course and a writ of habeas corpus be issued requiring respondents to produce the bodies of herein private respondent and his co-accused before the Court and explain by what authority they arrested and detained them. The following proceedings took place thereafter in said case: 1. In a resolution of 7 October 1986 We issued a writ of habeas corpus, required respondents to make a return of the writ on or before the close of office hours on 13 October and set the petition for hearing on 14 October 1986 at 10:00 o'clock in the morning. 2. On 13 October 1986 respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Return To The Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging therein that private respondent and Josefina Cruz alias "Mrs. Mercado", and Jose Milo Concepcion alias "Eugene Zamora" were apprehended by the military on September 29, 1986 in the evening at the Philippine General Hospital Compound at Taft Ave., Manila, being leaders or members of the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People's Army and National Democratic Front, organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the Government through violent means, and having actually committed acts of rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. After their arrest they were forthwith charged with rebellion before Branch XII of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region in Criminal Case No. 86-48926 and on 3 October warrants for their arrest were issued and respondents continue to detain them because of the warrants of arrest and the pendency of the criminal cases against them. Respondents further allege that, contrary to the allegation in the petition, herein private respondent was not a member of the NDF panel involved in peace negotiations with the Government; neither is he and his companions Cruz and Concepcion covered by any safe conduct pass issued by competent authorities.

3. At the hearing on 14 October 1986 the parties informed the Court of certain agreements reached between them. We issued a resolution reading as follows: "When this case was called for hearing this morning, Attorneys Romeo Capulong, Arno V. Sanidad, Efren H. Mercado, Edgardo Pamin-tuan, Casiano Sabile, Ramon Cura, and William Chua appeared for the petitioners with Atty. Capulong arguing for the petitioners. Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordoñez, Assistant Solicitor General Romeo C. de la Cruz and Trial Attorney Josue E. Villanueva appeared for the respondents, with Solicitor General Ordoñez arguing for the respondents. Petitioners' counsel, Atty. Romeo Capulong, manifested in open Court that in conformity with the agreement reached with the government, the petition for habeas corpus will be withdrawn with detainee Rodolfo Salas to remain under custody, whereas his co-detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately. Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordoñez, also in open Court, confirmed the foregoing statement made by petitioners' counsel regarding the withdrawal of the petition for habeas corpus, declaring that no objection will be interposed to the immediate release of detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion, and that no bond will be required of them, but they will continue to face trial with their coaccused, Rodolfo Salas; further, that they will not be rearrested on the basis of the warrants issued by the trial court provided that they manifest in open Court their willingness to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court and to appear in court when their presence is required. In addition, he stated that he is willing to confer with petitioners' counsel today relative to the compromise agreement that they have previously undertaken to submit. Upon manifestation of petitioners' counsel, Atty. Romeo Capulong, that on his oath as member of the Bar, the detainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion have agreed to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court, the Court ordered their immediate release. Thereafter, the Court approved the foregoing manifestations and statements and required both parties to SUBMIT to the Court their compromise agreement by 4:00 o'clock this afternoon. Teehankee, C.J., is on official leave." 4. At 3:49 o'clock in the afternoon of 14 October 1986 the parties submitted a Joint Manifestation and Motion duly signed by Atty. Romeo Capulong, counsel for petitioners, and Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordoñez, Assistant Solicitor General Romeo C. de la Cruz and Trial Attorney Josue S. Villanueva, counsel for respondents, which reads as follows: "COME NOW petitioners and the respondents, assisted by their respective counsel, and to this Honorable Tribunal respectfully manifest: 1. That in the discussion between Romeo Capulong, petitioners' counsel, and Solicitor General Sedfrey A. Ordoñez on October 13, 1986 exploratory talks were conducted to find out how the majesty of the law may be preserved and human considerations may be called into play.

2. That in the conference both counsel agreed to the following terms of agreement: a. The petition for habeas corpus will be withdrawn by petitioners and Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be immediately released but shall appear at the trial of the criminal case for rebellion (People v. Rodolfo Salas, et al., Criminal Case No. 4886 [should be 86-48926], Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region) filed against them under their personal recognizance. b. Petitioner Rodolfo Salas will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person. c. The warrant of arrest for the persons of Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion is hereby deemed recalled in view of formal manifestation before the Supreme Court that they will submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their person. 3. That on October 14, the Solicitor General was able to obtain the conformity of the Government to the foregoing terms which were likewise accepted by petitioner (sic) and their counsel of record. 4. That the two counsel submitted their oral manifestation during the hearing on October 14 and the present manifestation in compliance with the resolution announced in court this morning. WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the petition for habeas corpus be dismissed." 5. On 16 October 1986 We issued the following resolution: "G.R. No. 76009 [In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Rodolfo Salas, Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion, et al. v. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, Brig. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. Ramon Montaño and Col. Virgilio Saldajeno] - Considering the Joint Manifestation and Motion dated October 14, 1986 filed by Attorneys Romeo Capulong, Arno V. Sanidad, Efren H. Mercado and Ricardo Fernandez, Jr. as counsel for petitioners and Solicitor General Sedfrey A. Ordoñez and Assistant Solicitor General Romeo C. de la Cruz and Trial Attorney Josue S. Villanueva as counsel for respondents which states that they have entered into an agreement whereby: [a] the petition for habeas corpus will be withdrawn by petitioners, and Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be immediately released but shall appear at the trial of the criminal case for rebellion [People vs. Rodolfo Salas, et al., Criminal Case No. 4886, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XII, Manila], filed against them, on their personal recognizance; [b] petitioner Rodolfo Salas will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person; and [c] the warrant of arrest for the person of Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion is hereby deemed recalled in view of the formal manifestation before this Court that they will submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their person and in view of the said agreement, the petition for habeas corpus be dismissed, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for habeas corpus but subject to the condition that petitioners' lead counsel, Atty. Capulong, upon his oath as member of the Bar, shall abide by his commitment to ensure the appearance of Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion at the trial of the criminal case for rebellion filed against them. Teehankee, C.J., is on official leave."

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." 37 Upon the other hand, private respondent asserts that this claim is totally devoid of factual and legal basis, for in their petition for habeas corpus they precisely questioned the legality of the arrest and the continued detention of Rodolfo Salas, Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion, which was not resolved by this Court or by the compromise agreement of the parties but left open for further determination in another proceeding. Moreover, the matter of the right to bail was neither raised by either party nor resolved by this Court, and the legal steps promptly taken by private respondent after the agreement was reached, like the filing of the motion to quash on 7 November 1986 and the petition for bail on 14 May 1987, were clear and positive assertions of his statutory and constitutional rights to be granted not only provisional but final and permanent liberty. Finally, private respondent maintains that the term "legal custody" as used in the Joint Manifestation and Motion simply means that private respondent agreed to continue to be in the custody of the law or in custodia legis and nothing else; it is not to be interpreted as waiver. Interestingly, private respondent admits that: "'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.' (Bouviers Law Dictionary, Third Ed, Vol. I, pp. 741-742 citing Smith v. Com. 59 Pa. 320 and Rolland v. Com. 82 Pa. 306)" He further admits that, in the light of Section 1 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court and settled jurisprudence, the "constitutional right to bail is subject to the limitation that the person applying for admission to bail should be in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty." 38 When the parties in G.R. No. 76009 stipulated that: "b. Petitioner Rodolfo Salas will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person." they simply meant that Rodolfo Salas, herein respondent, will remain in actual physical custody of the court, or in actual confinement or detention, as distinguished from the stipulation concerning his copetitioners, who were to be released in view of the recall of the warrants of arrest against them; they agreed, however, "to submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their persons." Note should be made of the deliberate care of the parties in making a fine distinction between legal custody and court having custody over the person in respect to Rodolfo Salas and court having jurisdiction over the persons of his co-accused. Such a fine distinction was precisely intended to emphasize the agreement that Rodolfo Salas will not be released, but should remain in custody. Had the parties intended otherwise, or had this been unclear to private respondent and his counsel, they should have insisted on the use of a clearer language. It must be remembered that at the time the parties orally manifested before this Court on 14 October 1986 the terms and conditions of their agreement and prepared and signed the Joint Manifestation and Motion, a warrant of arrest had already been issued by the trial court against private respondent and his co-accused. The stipulation that only the warrants of

arrest for Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion shall be recalled and that only they shall be released, further confirmed the agreement that herein petitioner shall remain in custody of the law, or detention or confinement. In defining bail as: ". . . the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, . . ." 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 trial. 39 It presupposes that the person applying for it should be in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of liberty. 40 Consequently, having agreed in G.R. No. 76009 to remain in legal custody, private respondent had unequivocably waived his right to bail. But, is such waiver valid? Article 6 of the Civil Code expressly provides: "Art. 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law." Waiver is defined as "a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such waiver the party would have enjoyed; the voluntary abandonment or surrender, by a capable person, of a right known by him to exist, with the intent that such right shall be surrendered and such person forever deprived of its benefit; or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right; or the intentional doing of an act inconsistent with claiming it." 41 As to what rights and privileges may be waived, the authority is settled: "x x x the doctrine of waiver extends to rights and privileges of any character, and, since the word 'waiver' covers every conceivable right, it is the general rule that a person may waive any matter which affects his property, and any alienable right or privilege of which he is the owner or which belongs to him or to which he is legally entitled, whether secured by contract, conferred with statute, or guaranteed by constitution, provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual, are intended for his sole benefit, do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the waiver of the right or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy; and the principle is recognized that everyone has a right to waive, and agree to waive, the advantage of a law or role made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing on any public right, and without detriment to the community at large. . . ..

Although the general rule is that any right or privilege conferred by statute or guaranteed by constitution may be waived, a waiver in derogation of a statutory right is not favored, and a waiver will be inoperative and void if it infringes on the rights of others, or would be against public policy or morals and the public interest may be waived. While it has been stated generally that all personal rights conferred by statute and guaranteed by constitution may be waived, it has also been said that constitutional provisions intended to protect property may be waived, and even some of the constitutional rights created to secure personal liberty are subjects of waiver." 42 In Commonwealth vs. Petrillo, 43 it was held: "Rights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall naturally into two classes: (a) those in which the state, as well as the accused, is interested; and (b) those which are personal to the accused, which are in the nature of personal privileges. Those of the first class cannot be waived; those of the second may be." It is "competent for a person to waive a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and to consent to action which would be invalid if taken against his will." 44 This Court has recognized waivers of constitutional rights such as, for example, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; 45 the right to counsel and to remain silent; 46 and the right to be heard. 47 Even the 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes a waiver of rights guaranteed by its Bill of Rights. Section 12(1) of Article III thereof on the right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice states: ". . . These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." This provision merely particularizes the form and manner of the waiver; it, nevertheless, clearly suggests that the other rights may be waived in some other form or manner provided such waiver will not offend Article 6 of the Civil Code. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. The respondent Judge then clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the private respondent. WHEREFORE, the Orders of respondent Judge of July 7, 1987 and July 30, 1987 in Criminal Case No. 8648926 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo C. Salas alias Commander Bilog/Henry, Josefina Cruz alias Mrs. Mercado, and Jose Milo Concepcion alias Eugene Zamora, for Rebellion, are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.

Comendador vs. De Villa

August2, 1991.

[GRN 93177 August2, 1991.*] BGEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, BGEN. MARIELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, CAPT. MANUEL ISON, COL. LUISITO SANCHEZ, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO, LTC. ARSENIC) TECSON, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ, LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILL ERO, LTC. ERICSON AURELIO, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT, LTC. FRANKLJN BRAWNER, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PERA, MAJ. LEUVINO VALENCIA, CAPT. FLORENCIO FLORES, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO, CAPT. DANILO LIM, CAPT. ELMER AMON, CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, ai)d LT. JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, THE PTI INVESTIGATING PANEL COMPOSED OF: COL. MANUEL S. MENDIOLA, COL. VIRTUD NORBERTO L. DAGZA, MAJ. FELIX V. BALDO NADO and MAJ. ESTELITO L. PORNEA, and GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14 COMPOSED OF: BGEN. DEMET RIO CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA and CAPT. FRAN CISCO T. MALLILLIN, respondents. [GRN 95020 August 2,1991.*] BGEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA, and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, petitioners, vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge, Branch 104, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Q.C., LTC. JACINTO LIGOT, PA., respondents. [GRN 96948 August 2,1991.*] BGEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, BGEN. MARCELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO PN, CAPT. MANUEL ISON PN, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO PN (M), LTC. ARSENIO TECSON PA, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ PA, LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO PA, LTC. ERICSON AURELIO PA, LTC. JACINTO LlGOT, PA, LTC. FRANKLIN BRAWNER PA, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS PA, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PENA PN (M): MAJ. LEUVINO VALENCIA PA, CAPT. FLORENCTO FLORES PA, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO PA, CAPT. DANILO LIM PA, CAPT. ELMER AMON PAF, CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, and LT. JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. BGEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA, and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14, respondents. [GRN 97454 August 2,1991.X##S*] AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN RODOLFO BIAZON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF MAJOR GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, PNP DIRECTOR GENERAL MAJOR GEN. CESAR NAZARENO and LT. COL. ALBERTO OLARIO, Commanding Officer of the PNP/INP Detention Center/Jail, petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, Presiding Judge, Renonal Trial Court, Quezon City, 13-anch 86, CAPTAIN REYNALDO S. RAFAEL, ILT. SERVANDO A. EACANAN PN(M), 1LT. WILFREDO JIMENEZ PAF, ILT. ATANACIO T. MACALAN, JR PM(M), 2LT. ELISEO T. RASCO PC, 2LT. JONAS CALLEJA PC, 2LT. JAIRUS JS. GELVEZON III PM(M), 2LT. JOSELITO CABREROS PM(M), 2LT. MEMEL ROJAS PN(M) and 2LT. HERMINIO L. CANTACO PC, respondents. G.R, No. 93177:

PETITION for certiorari prohibition and mandamus to review the decision of the General Court Martial No. 14. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court, G.R. No. 96948: PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the General Court Martial No. 14. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. G.R. No. 95020: PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 104. Asuncion, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. G.R. No. 97454: PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 86. Solano, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Armando M. Marcelo and Rainier L. Madrid for petitiners Luisito Sanchez, Tiburcic, Fusillero, Ericson Aurelio, Levillo Valencia, Danilo Amon, Vergel Nacino, Florencio Flores, Beniguo Junio and Joey Sarroza. Manuel Q. Malvar for Rafael Galvez and Danny Lim. Manuel E. Valenzuela for Arsenio Tecson. Mariano R. Santiago for Alfredo Oliveros. Ricardo J.M. Rivera for Manuel Ison. Castillo, Laman, Tan and Pantaleon for Danilo Pizarro. Alfredo Lazaro for Romelino Gojo. Manuel A. Barcelona, Jr. for Jose Comendador. Jonathan B.S. Rebong and Efren C. Carag for Marcelo Blando. Pablito V. Sanidad for Franklin Brawner and Ericsor,. A i relio. Efren C. Moncupa for A.L. Tecson. M.M. Lazaro .'Pz Associate, for respondents Ligot and Ison. Baldomero S.P. Gatbonton, Jr. for Jacinto Ligot.

Salvador B. Britanico for Cesar de Is Peiia. Gilbert R.T. Reyes for Danilo Pizarro. Ponce Enrile, Cayetano, Reyes & Manalastas for petitioners in G.R. No. 93177. The Solicitor General for respondents. CRUZ, J.: These four cases have been consolidated because they involve practically the same parties and related issues arising from the same incident. The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 and the private respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454 are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup d'etat that took place on December I to 9,1989. The charges against them are violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). In G.R. No. 93177, which is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, they are questioning the conduct of the Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel constituted to investigate the charges against them and the creation of the General Court Martial (GCM) convened to try them. In G.R. No. 96948, the petitioners, besides challenging the legality of GCM No. 14, seek certiorari against its ruling denying them the right to peremptory challenge as granted by Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408. In G.R. No. 95020, the orders of the respondent judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City are assailed on certiorari on the ground that he has no jurisdiction over GCM No. 14 and no authority either to set aside its ruling denying bail to the Private respondents. In G.R, No. 97454, certiorari is also sought against the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in a petition for habeas corpus directing the release of the private respondents. Jurisdictional objections are likewise raised as in G.R. No. 95020.

Before the charges were referred to GCM No. 14, a Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel had been constituted pursuant to Office Order No. 16 dated January 14, 1990, to investigate the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948. The PTI Panel issued a uniform subpoena dated January 30, 1990, individually addressed to the petitioners, to wit:

You are hereby directed to appear in person before the under signed Pre-Trial Investigating Officers on 12 Feb 90 9:00 a.m. at Kiangan Hall, Camp Crante Quezon City, then and there to submit Your counteraffidavit and the affidavits of your witnesses, if any, in the pre-trial investigation of the chargetcharges against you for viol of AWs . DO NOT SUBMIT A MOTION TO DISMISS. Failure to submit the aforementioned counter-affidavits on the date above specified shall be deemed a waiver of your right to submit controverting evidence. On the same date, the petitioners acknowledged receipt of a copy of the charge sheet, sworn statements of witnesses, and death and medical certificates of victims of the rebellion. At the first scheduled hearing, the petitioners challenged the proceedings on various grounds, prompting the PTI Panel to grant them 10 days within which to file their objections in writing. This was done through a Motion for Summary Dis missal dated February 21, 1990. In a resolution dated February 27,1990, the PTI Panel denied the motion and gave the petitioners 5 days from notice to submit their respective counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses. On March 7, 1990, the petitioners verbally moved for recon sideration of the foregoing denial and the PTI Panel gave them 7 days within which to reduce their motion to writing. This was done on March 14,1990. The petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial investi gation of the charges as mandated by Article of War 71, which provides: Art. 71. Charges, Action upon.-Charges and specifications must be signed by a person subject to military law and under the oath either that he has personal knowledge of, or has investigated, the matters set forth therein and that the same are true in fact, to the best of his knowledge and belief. No charge will be referred to a general court-martial for trial until after a thorough and impartial investigation thereof shall have been made. This investigation will include inquiries as to the truth of the matter set forth in said charges, form of charges, and what disposition of the case should be made in the interest ofjustice and discipline. At such investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to crossexamine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf either in defense or mitigation, and the investigating officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after such investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides. (Italics supplied.) They also allege that the initial hearing of the charges consisted merely of a roll call and that no prosecution witnesses were presented to reaffirm their affidavits. )"ile the motion for summary dismissal was denied, the motion for reconsideration remains unresolved to date and they have not been able to submit their counter-affidavits. At the hearing of May 15, 1990, the petitioners in G.R. No. 96948 manifested that they were exercisjng their right to raise peremptory challenges against the president and members of GCM No. 14. They

invoked Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 for this purpose. GCM No. 14 ruled, however, that peremptory challenges had been discontinued under P.D. No. 39. In G.R. No. 95020, Lte. Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5, 1990, but the application was denied by GCM No. 14. He thereupon filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional hber-ty and a writ of preliminary injunction. After considering the petition and the answer thereto filed by the president and members of CCM No. 14, Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion issued an order granting provisional liberty to Ligot. On July 28, 1990, Ligot filed an urgent omnibus motion to enforce the order for his release and to declare in contempt the commanding officer of the PC/INP Jail for disobeying the said order. He later also complained that Generals De Villa and Aguirre had refused to release him "pending final resolution of the appeal to be taken" to this Court. After hearing, the trial court reiterated its order for the provisional liberty of Ligot, as well as of intervenors Ltc. Franklin Brawner, Lt/Col. Arsenio Tecson and Maj. Alfredo Oliveros, and later of additional intervenors Me. Romelino Gojo and Capt. Manuel Ison. On August 22, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment inter alia: (a) Declaring, that Section 13, Article III of the Constitution granting the right to bail to all persons with the defined exception is applicable and covers all military men facing court-martial proceedings. Accordingly, the assailed orders of General Court-martial No. 14 denying bail to petitioner and intervenors on the mistaken assumption that bail does not apply to military men facing court-martial proceedings on the ground that there is no precedent, are hereby set aside and declared null and void. Respondent General Court-Martial No. 14 is hereby directed to conduct proceedings on the applications of bail of the petitioner, intervenors and which may as well include other persons facing charges before General Court-Martial No. 14. Pending the proceedings on the applications for bail before General CourtMartial No. 14, this Court reiterates its orders of release on the provisional liberty of petitioner Jacinto Ligot as well as intervenors Franklin Brawner and Arsenio Tecson. On February 18, 1991, the private respondents in G.R. No. 97454 filed with this Court a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that they were being detained in Camp Crame without charges. The petition was referred to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where it was raffled to respondent Judge Antonio P. Solano. Finding after hearing that no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more than a year after their arrest, the trial court ordered their release. II The Court has examined the records of this case and rules as follows. It appears that the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 were given several opportunities to present their side at the

pro-trial investigation, first at the scheduled hearing of February 12, 1990, and then again after the denial of their motion of February 21, 1990, when they were given until March 7,1990, to submit their counter-affidavits. On that date, they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration which they were again asked to submit in writing. This they did on March 13, 1990. The motion was in effect denied when the PTI Panel resolved to recommend that the charges be referred to the General Court Martial for trial. The said petitioners cannot now claim they have been denied due process because the investigation was resolved against them owing to their own failure to submit their counter-affidavits. They had been expressly warned In the subpoena sent them that "failure to submit the aforementioned counteraffidavits on the date above specified shall be deemed a waiver of (their) right to submit controverting evidence." They chose not to heed the warning. As their motions appeared to be dilatory, the PTI Panel was justified in referring the charges to GCM No. 14 without waiting for the petitioners to submit their defense. Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violation of the Bill of Rights. There was in our view substantial compliance with Article of War 71 by the PTI Panel. Moreover, it is now settled that "even a failure to conduct a pre-trial investigation does not deprive a general courtmartial of jurisdiction." We so held in Arula v. Espino,l thus: xxx But even a failure to conduct a pre-trial investigation does not deprive a general courtmartial of jurisdiction. The better accepted concept of pre-trial investigation is that it is directory, not mandatory, and in no way affects the jurisdiction of a court-martial. In Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U.S. 695, 93 L ed 986 Q 949), the Court said: "We do not think that the pre-trial investigation procedure by Article 70 (The Philippine counter-part is article of war 71, Commonwealth Act 408) can properly be construed as an indis pensable pre-requisite to the exercise of Army general court. martial jurisdiction. The Article does serve important functions in the administration of court-martial procedures and does provide safeguards to an accused. Its language is clearly such that a defendant could object to trial in the absence of the required investigation. In that event the court-martial could itself postpone trial pending the investigation. And the military reviewing authorities could consider the same contention, reversing a court-martial conviction where failure to comply with Article 70 has substantially injured an accused. But we are not persuaded that Congress intended to make otherwise valid court-martial judgments wholly void because pre-trial investigations fall short of the standards prescribed by Article 70. That Congress has not required analogous pre-trial procedure for Navy court-martial is an indication that the investigatory plan was not intended to be exalted to the jurisdictional level. xxx Shortly after enactment of Article 70 in 1920 the Judge Advocate General of the Army did hold that where there had been no pre-trial investigation, court-martial proceedings were void ab initio. But this holding has been expressly repudiated in later holdings of the Judge Advocate General. This later

interpretation has been that the pre-trial requirements of Article 70 are directory, not mandatory, and in no way effect the jurisdiction of a court-martial. The War Departments interpretation was pointedly called to the attention of Congress in 1947 after which Congress amended Article 70 but left unchanged the language here under consideration." A trial before a general court-martial convened without any pretrial investigation under article of war 71 would of course be altogether irregular; but the court-martial might nevertheless have jurisdiction. Significantly, this rule is similar to the one obtaining in criminal procedure in the civil courts to the effect that absence of preliminary investigation does not go into the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the regularity of the proceedings. As to what law should govern the conduct of the preliminary investigation, that issue was resolved more than two years ago in Kapunan v. De Villa,2 where we declared:

The Court finds that, contrary to the contention of petitioners, there was substantial compliance with the requirements of law a provided in the Articles of War and P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. pro No. 911. The amended charge sheets, charging petitioners and their co-respondents with mutiny and conduct unbecoming an officer, were signed by Maj. Antonio Ruiz, a person subject to military law, after he had investigated the matter through an evaluation of the pertinent records, including the reports of respondent AFP Board of Officers, and was convinced of the truth of the testimonies on record. The charge sheets were sworn to by Maj. Ruiz, the "accuser," in accordance withan in the manner provided under Art. 71 of the Articles of War. Considering that P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911, is only of suppletory application, the fact that the chafge sheets were not certified in the mariner provided under said decrees, i.e., that the officer administering the oath has personally examined the affiant and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood his affidavit, does not invalidate said charge sheets. Thereafter, a "pretrial investigation" was conducted by respondent Maj. Baldonado, wherein, pursuant to P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911, petitioners were subpoenaed and required to file their counter-affidavit. However, instead of doing so, they filed an untitled pleading seeking the dismissal of the charges against them. That petitioners were not able to confront the witnesses against them was their own doing, for they never even asked Maj. Baldonado to subpoena said witnesses so that they may be made to answer clarificatory questions in accordance with P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911. The petitioners also allege that G-CM No. 14 has not been constitute in accordance with Article 8 of the Articles of War because General Order No. M-6, which supposedly convened the body, was not signed by Gen. Renato de Villa as Chief of Staff. Article of War No. 8 reads: Art. 8. General Courts-MartW.-The President of the Philippines, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Chief of Constabulary and, when empowered by the President, the commanding officer of a major command or task force, the commanding officer of a division, the commanding officer

of a military area, the superintendent of the Military Academy, the commanding officer of a separate brigade or body of troops may appoint general courts-martial; but when any such commander is the accuser or the prosecutor of the person or persons to be tried, the court shall be appointed by superior competent authority. x x x While it is true that General Order No. M-6 was not signed by Gen. De Villa, there is no doubt that he authorized it because the order itself said it was issued "By Command of General De Villa" and it has not been shown to be spurious. As observed by the Solicitor General, the Summary Disposition Form showed that Gen. De Villa, as Chief of Staff, AFP, actually constituted GCM No. 14 and appointed its president and members. It is significant that General Do Villa has not disauthorized or revoked or in any way disowned the said order, as he would certainly have done if his authority had been improperly invoked. On the contrary, as the principal respondent in G.R. No. -6 in the Comment 93177, he sustained General Order No. M filed for him and the other respondents by the Solicitor General. Coming now to the right to peremptory challenge, we note that this was originally provided for under Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 (Articles of War), as amended by Rep. Act No. 242, on June 12, 1948, to wit: Art. 18. Challenges.-Members of general or special courtsmartial may be challenged by the accused or the trial judge advocate for cause stated to the court. The court shall-determine the relevancy and validity thereof, and shall not receive a challenge to more than one member at a time. Challenges by the trial judge advocate shall ordinarily be presented and decided before those by the accused are offered. Each side shall be entitled to the peremptory challenge, but the law member of the court shall not be challenged except for cause. The history of peremptory challenge was traced in Martelino v. Alejandro, 3 thus: In the early formative years of the infant Philippine Army, after the passage in 1935 of Commonwealth Act No. 1 (otherwise known as the National Defense Act), except for a handful of Philippine Smut officers and graduates of the United States military and naval academies who were on duty with the Philippine Army, there was a complete dearth of officers learned in military law, this aside from the fact that the officer corps of the developing army was numerically made quate for the demands of the strictly military aspects of the national defense program. Because of these consideration it was then felt that peremptory challenges should not in the meanwhile be permitted and that only challenges for cause, in any number, would be allowed. Thus Article 18 of the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No. 408), as worded on September 14, 1938, the date of the approval of the Act, made no mention or reference to any peremptory challenge by either the trial judge advocate of a court-martial or by the accused. After December 17,1958, when the Manual for Courts-Martial of the Philip Army became effective, the Judge Advocate General's Service of the Philippine Army conducted a continuing and intensive program of training and education in military law, encompassing the length and breadth of the Philippines. This program was pursued until the outbreak of World War II in the Pacific on December 7, 1941 . After the formal surrender of Japan to the allies in 1945, the officer corps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines had expanded to a very large number, and a great many of the officers had been

indoctrinated in military law. It was in these environmental circumstances that Article of War 18 was amended on June 12,1948 to entitle "each side" to one peremptory challenge, with the sole proviso that "the law member of court shall not be challenged except for cause." On September 27,1972, President Marcos issued General Order No. 8, empowering the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces to create military tribunals "to try and decide cases of military personnel and such other cases as may be referred to them." On November 7,1972, he promulgated P.D. No. 39 (Governing the Creation, Composition, Jurisdiction, Procedure, and other matters relevant to Military Tribunals). This decree disallowed the peremptory challenge, thus: No peremptory challenge shall be allowed. Challenges for cause may be entertained to insure impartiality and good faith. Challenges shall immediately be heard and determined by a majority of the members excluding the challenged member. A tie vote does not disqualify the challenged member. A successfully challenged member shall be immediately replaced. On June 11, 1978, President Marcos promulgated P.D. No. 1498, or the National Security Code, which was a compilation and codification of decrees, general orders, LOI and policies intended "to meet the continuing threats to the exixtence, secu rity and stability of the State." The modified rule on challenges under P.D. No. 39. was embodied in this decree. On January 17, 1981, President Marcos issued Proc. N3.21045 proclaiming the termination of the state of martial law though out the Philippines. The proclamation revoked General order No. 8 and declared the dissolution of the military tribunals created pursuant thereto upon final determination of the cases pending therein. P.D. No. 39 was issued to implement General Order No 8 and the other general orders mentioned therein. With the termination of martial law and the dissolution of the military tribunals. As created thereunder, the reason for the existence of P.D. No. 39 ceased automatically. It is a basic canon of statutory construction that when The reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex, This principle is also expressed in the maxim ratio legis est anima: the reason of law is its soul. Applying these rules, we hold that the withdrawal of the jig ht to peremptory challenge in P.D. No. 39 became ineffectivewb m the apparatus of martial law was dismantled with the iss aari ce of Proclamation No. 2045. As a result, the old rule embodied in Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 was automatically revived and now again allows the right to peremptory challenge. We do not agree with the respondents in G.R. No. 96948 that A the right to peremptory challenge remains withdrawn under P.D. No. 39. To repeat for emphasis, this decree was itself. If withdrawn when martial law was lifted on January 17, 196 1. Indeed, even if not so withdrawn, it could still be considered

no longer operative, having been cast out under the new dispensation as, in the words of the Freedom Constitution, one of the "iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime." The military tribunal was one of the most oppressive instruments of martial law. It is curious that the present government should invoke the rules of that discredited body to justify its action against the accused officers. The Court realizes that the recognition of the right to peremitory challenge may be exploited by a respondent in a court martial trial to delay the proceedings and defer his deserved punishment. It is hoped that the accused officers in the cases at bar will not be so motivated. At any rate, the wisdom of Com. Comendador vs. De Villa et No. 408, in the light of present circumstances, is a matter addressed to the law-makers and not to this Court. The judiciary can only interpret and apply the laws without regard to its own misgivings on their adverse effects. This is a problem only the political departments can resolve. The petitioners in G.R. Nos, 95020 and 97454 question the propriety of the petition for certiorari and mandamus and the petition for habeas corpus filed by the private respondents with the Regional Trial Courts of Quezon City. It is argued that since the private respondents are officers of the Armed Forces accused of violations of the Articles of War, the respondent courts have no authority to order their release and otherwise interfere with the court-martial proceedings. The petitioners further contend that under Sec. 9(3) of BP 129, the Court of Appeals is vested with "exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions." Rather irrelevantly, the petitioners also cite the case of Yang v. Court of Appeals,4 where this Court held that "appeals from the Professional Regulation Commission are now exclusively cognizable by the Court of Appeals." It should be noted that the aforecited provision and the case cited refer to ordinary appeals and not to the remedies employed by the accused officers before the respondent courts. In Martelino, we observed as follows: It is true that civil courts as a rule exercise no supervision or correcting power over the proceedings of courts-martial, and that mere errors in their proceedings are not open to consideration. The single inquiry, the test, is jurisdiction. But it is equally true that in the exercise of their undoubted discretion, courts-martial may commit such an abuse of diacretion-what in the language of Rule 65 is referred to as "grave abuse of discretion"-as to give rise to a defect in their jurisdiction. This is precisely the point at issue in this action suggested by its nature as one for certiorari and prohibition x x x. The Regional Trial Court has coneurrent 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.5 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 car, exercise similar jurisdiction. 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 light to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist." The justification for this exception was well explained by the Solicitor General as follows: 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 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 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. On the contention of the private respondents in G.R. No. 97454 that they had not been charged after more than one year from their arrest, our finding is that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speedy trial. The petition for habeas corpus was directly filed with this Court on February 18, 1991, and was referred to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for raffle, hearing and decision. It was heard on February 26, 1991, by the respondent court, where the petitioners submitted the charge memorandum and specifications against the private respondents dated January 30, 1991. On February 12, 1991, pursuant to Office Order No. 31-91, the PTI panel was created and initial investigation was scheduled on March 12,1991 at 2:00 p.m. On March 20, 1991, the private respondents received the copies of the charges, charge sheets and specifications and were required to submit their counter-affidavits on or before April 11, 1991. There was indeed a delay of more than one year in the investigation and preparation of the charges against the private respondents. However, this was explained by the Solicitor General thus:

x x x The AFP Special Investigating Committee was able to complete its precharge investigation only after one (1) year because hundreds of officers and thousands of enlisted men were involved in the failed coup. Ali of them, as well as other witnesses, had to be interviewed or investigated, and these inevitably took months to finish. The pre-charge investigation was rendered doubly difficult by the fact that those involved were dispersed and scattered throughout the Philippines. In some cases, command units, such as the Scout Rangers, have already been disbanded. After, the charges were completed, the same still had to paw review and approval by the AFP Chief of Staff. While accepting this explanation, the Court nevertheless must reiterate the following admonition: This Court as protector of the rights of the people, must stress the point that if the participation of petitioner in several coup attempts for which he is confined on orders of Adjutant General Jorge Agcaoili cannot be established and no charges can be died against him or the existence of a prima facie case warranting trial before a military commission is wanting, it behooves respondent then Major General Rodolfo Biazon (now General) to release petitioner. Respondents must also be reminded that even if a military officer is arrested pursuant to Article 70 of then Articles of War, indefinite confinement is not sanctioned, as Article 71 thereof mandates that immediate steps must be taken to try the person accused or to dismiss the charge and release him. Any officer who is responsible for unnecessary delay in investigating or carrying the case to a final conclusion may even be punished as a court martial may direct.6 It should be noted, finally, that after the decision was rendered by Judge Solano on February 26, 1991, the government filed a notice of appeal ad cautelam and a motion for reconsideration, the latter was ultimately denied, after hearing, on March 4, 1991. The 48-hour period for appeal under Rule 41, Section 18, of the Rules of Court did not run until after notice of such denial was received by the petitioners on March 12, 1991. Contrary to the private respondents' contention, therefore, the decision had not yet become final and executory when the special civil action in G.R. No. 97454 was filed with this Court on March 12,1991. III Regarding the propriety of the petitions at bar, it is well to reiterate the following observations of the Court in Arula: The referral of charges to a court-martial involves the exercise of judgment and discretion (AW 71). A petition for certiorari, in order to prosper, must be based on jurisdictional grounds because, as long as the respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal. Even an abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. As in that case, we find that the respondents in G.R. No. 93177 have not acted with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of jurisdiction to justify the intervention of the Court and the reversal of the acts complained of by the petitioners. Such action is indicated, however, in G.R. No. 96948, where

we find that the right to peremptory challenge should not have been denied, and in G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, where the private respondents should not have been ordered released. ACCORDINGLY, in G.R. No. 93177, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. In G.R. No. 96948, the petition is GRANTED, and the respondents are DIRECTED to allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory challenge under Article 18 of the Articles of War. In G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, the petitions are also GRANTED, and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs. SO ORDERED. Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, GrinoAquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur. Sarmiento, J., See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. SARMIENTO, J.: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. I concur with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Cruz, but I dissent insofar as he would deny bail to accused military personnel. The Constitution explicitly grants the right to bail to "all persons" before conviction, with the only exception of "those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong."1 The Charter also states that "[T]he right to bail shall Dot be impaired even if the writ of habeas corpus is suspended."2 To deny the military officers here concerned of the right to bail is to circumscribe the inclusive meaning of "all persons' the coverage of the right. I believe that military officers fall within "persons". The picture conjured up by the Solicitor General of "a scenario of say 1,000 putschists reaming the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order were sustained, on 'provisional' bail... [t]he sheer number alone is already discomforting . . . Nut, 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."' But would a scenario of 1,000 murderers or drug pushers roaming the streets of the metropolis justify a denial of the right to bail? Would not that dark picture painted by the Solicitor General be reproduced by 1,000 "equally dangerous" elements of society? We gave bail Senator Enrile and General Brawner. I find no reason why the petitioners should not be granted the same right.

The majority would point to tradition, supposed to be firmly settled, as an argument to deny bail. I submit, however, that tradition is no argument. First, the Constitution does not say it. Second, we are a government of laws, not tradition. If there are precedents that attest to the contrary, I submit that a reexamination is in order. G.R. No. 93177, petition dismissed; G.R. No. 96948, petition granted; G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, petitions granted, orders reversed and set aside.

1. 28 SCRA 540. 2. 168 SCRA 264. 3. 32 SCRA 106. 26. SCRA 235 5. See. 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; See. 9 (1) and Sec. B.P. 129. 6. Elepante v. Madayag, G.R. No. 93559, April 26,1991. 1. CONST., art. 111, sec. 13. 2. Supra. 3. Decision, 20.

Manotoc, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

May 30, 1986.

[GRN L-62100 May 30, 1986.*] RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONS. SERAFIN E. CAMILON and RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as Judges of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig branches, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, HON. EDMUNDO M. REYES, as Commissioner of Immigration, and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM), respondents. PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. FERNAN, J.: The issue posed for resolution in this petition for review may be stated thus: Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel? Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Having transferred the management of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds no officer-position in said business, but acts as president of the former corporation. Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction, petitioner, who was then in the United States, came home, and together with his costockholders, filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc Securities, Inc., but likewise for Trans-Insular Management, Inc. The petition relative to the Manotoc Securities, Inc., docketed as SEC Case No. 001826, entitled, "In the Matter of the Appointment of a Management Committee for Manotoc Securities, Inc., Teodoro Kalaw, Jr., Ricardo Manotoc, Jr., Petitioners", was granted and a management committee was organized and appointed. Pending disposition of SEC Case No. 001826, the Securities and Exchange Commission requested the then Commissioner of Immigration, Edmundo Reyes, not to clear petitioner for departure and a memorandum to this effect was issued by the Commissioner on February 4, 1980 to the Chief of the Immigration Regulation Division. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul Leveriza, Jr., as president and vice-president, respectively, of Manotoc Securities, Inc. In due course, corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by the investigating fiscal before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 45399 and 45400, assigned to respondent Judge Camilon, and Criminal Cases Nos. 45542 to 45545, raffled off to Judge Pronove. In all cases, petitioner has been admitted to bail in the total amount of P105,000.00, with FGU Insurance Corporation as surety.

On March 1, 1982, petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country", stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to his business transactions and opportunities."1 The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing, both trial judges denied the same. The order of Judge Camilon dated March 9, 1982, reads: "Accused Ricardo Manotoc Jr. desires to leave for the United States on the all embracing ground that his trip is 'x x x relative to his business transactions and opportunities.' "The Court sees no urgency from this statement. No matter of any magnitude is discerned to warrant judicial imprimatur on the proposed trip. "In view thereof, permission to leave the country is denied Ricardo Manotoc, Jr. now or in the future until these two (2) cases are terminated."2 On the other hand, the order of Judge Pronove dated March 26, 1982, reads in part: "6.-Finally, there is also merit in the prosecution's contention that if the Court would allow the accused to leave the Philippines the surety companies that filed the bail bonds in his behalf might claim that they could no longer be held liable in their undertakings because it was the Court which allowed the accused to go outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Court, should the accused fail or decide not to return. "WHEREFORE, the motion of the accused is DENIED."3 It appears that petitioner likewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter requesting the recall or withdrawal of the latter's memorandum dated February 4, 1980, but said request was also denied in a letter dated May 27, 1982. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals4 seeking to annul the orders dated March 9 and 26, 1982, of Judges Camilon and Pronove, respectively, as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission, denying his leave to travel abroad. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure. On October 5, 1982, the appellate court rendered a decision5 dismissing the petition for lack of merit. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's ruling, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. Pending resolution of the petition to which we gave due course on April 14, 19836 petitioner filed on August 15, 1984 a motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite.7 In his motion, petitioner stated that his presence in Louisiana, U.S.A. is needed in connection "with the obtention of foreign investment in Manotoc Securities, Inc. "8 He attached the letter dated August 9, 1984 of the chief executive officer of the Exploration Company of Louisiana, Inc., Mr. Marsden W. Miller9 requesting his presence in the United States to "meet the people and companies who would be involved in its investments." Petitioner, likewise manifested that on August 1, 1984, Criminal Cases Nos. 4933 to 4936 of the Regional Trial Court

of Makati (formerly Nos. 45542-45545) had been dismissed as to him "on motion of the prosecution on the ground that after verification of the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission x x x (he) was not in any way connected with the Manotoc Securities, Inc. as of the date of the commission of the offenses imputed to him."10 Criminal Cases Nos. 45399 and 45400 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, however, remained pending as Judge Camilon, when notified of the dismissal of the other cases against petitioner, instead of dismissing the cases before him, ordered merely the informations amended so as to delete the allegation that petitioner was president and to substitute that he was "controlling/majority stockholder,"11 of Manotoc Securities, Inc. On September 20, 1984, the Court in a resolution en banc denied petitioner's motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite.12 Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel. Petitioner's contention is untenable. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. 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."13 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. As we have held in People v. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935). "x x x 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. " Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. "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."14 If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right, and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains un affected despite the grant of bail to the latter. In fact, this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself, notwithstanding his allegation that he is at all total liberty to leave the country, for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place, if it were otherwise. To suport his contemtion, petitioner places reliance upon thethen Court of Appeals' ruling in People vs. Sheperd (C.A.-G.R. No. 23505-R, February 13, 1980) particularly citing the following passage: "x x x The law obliges the bondsmen to produce the person of the appellants at the pleasure of the Court. x x x The law does not limit such undertaking of the bondsmen as demandable only when the appellants are in the territorial confines of the Philippines and not demandable if the appellants are out of the country. Liberty, the most important consequence of bail., albeit provisional, is indivisible. If granted at all, liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the granting state. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law of jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail ddoes not transcend the territorial boundaries of the countries." The foath reposed by petitioner on the above-qouted opinion of the appellate court. is misplaced. The rather board and generalized statements seffers from a serious fallacy; for while there is, indeed, neither law or jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country, it is not for the reason suggested by the appellate court. Also, petitioner's case is not on all fours with the Sheperd case. In the latter case, the accused was able to show the urgent necessity for her travel abroad, the duration thereof and the conforme of her sureties to the proposed travel thereby satisfying the court that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. In contrast, petitioner in this case has not satisfactorily shown any of the above. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General in his comment: "A perusal of petitioner's 'Motion for Permission to Leave the Country' will show that it is solely predicated on petitioner's wish to travel to the United States where he will, allegedly attend to some business transsaction and search for business opportunities. From the tenor and import of petitioner's motion, no urbent or compelling reason can be discerned to justify the grant of judicial inpramatur thereto. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that there is absolute necessity for him to travel abroad. Petitioner's motion bears no indication that the alleged business transactions could not be undertaken by any other person in behalf. Neither is there any hint that petitioner's absence from the United States would absolutely prelude him vfrom taking advantage of the business opportunities therein, nor is there any showing that petitioner's non-presence in the United States would cause him irreparable damage or prejudice."15

Petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. Petitioner merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash indemnities. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country without the assent of the surety because in accepting the bail bond or recognizance, the government impliedly agress "that it will not take any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of the sureties or effect their remedies against him. Under this rule, the surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the condition thereof, which is made without his assent. The result has been reached as to a stipulation or agreement to postpone the trial until after the final disposition of other cases, or to permit the principal to leave the state or country ."16 Thus, although the order of March 26, 1982 issued by Judge pronove has been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal cases pending before said judge., We see the rationale bwehind the said order. As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial court and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel, We find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country, in much the same way, albeit with contrary results, that We found no reversible error to have been committed by the appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the country after it had satisfied itself that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an absolute right. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states: "The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or public health." To our mind, the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted constitutional provision. Finding the decision of the appellate court to be in accordance with law and jurisprudence, the Court finds that no gainful purpose will be served in discussing the other issues raised by petitioner. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dismissed, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, C.J., Abad Santos, Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz and Paras, JJ., concur. Feria, J., no part. Petition dismissed. 1. Annex "D", Petition, p. 44, Rollo. 2. lbid, p. 44, Rollo.

3. Ibid, p. 44, Rollo. 4. Annex "A", Petition, p. 17, Rollo. 5. Annex "D", Petition, p. 42, Rollo. 6. p. 87, Rollo. 7. p. 117, Rollo. 8. p. 120. Rollo. 9. Annex "BB", Motion for Leave, p. 124. 10. Rollo. p. 117. 11. Rollo. p. 121. 12. Rollo. 13. p. 129, Rollo. 14. 6 Am. Jur. [Rev. Ed.], Bailments, $100. 15. Comment, pp. 69-70, Rollo. 16. Am. Jur. 125.

RULE 114 Bail Section 1. Bail defined. — Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. (1a) Section 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. — All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions: (a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it; (b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules; (c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and (d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment. The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the bail. (2a) Section 3. No release or transfer except on court order or bail. — No person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to bail. (3a) Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. — All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. (4a) Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. (5a) Section 6. Capital offense defined. — A capital offense is an offense which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and of the application for admission to bail, may be punished with death. (6a) Section 7. Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (7a) Section 8. Burden of proof in bail application. — At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a 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 hearing 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 latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify. (8a) Section 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. — The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following factors: (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 accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a) Section 10. Corporate surety. — Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a surety in accordance with law and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board of directors. (10a) Section 11. Property bond, how posted. — A property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as security for the amount of the bail. Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the space provided therefor, in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned. Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his compliance and his failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and detention. (11a) Section 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond. — The qualification of sureties in a property bond shall be as follows: (a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines; (b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of the undertaking; (c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than that expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of bail demanded. In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and above all just debts, obligations and properties exempt from execution. (12a) Section 13. Justification of sureties. — Every surety shall justify by affidavit taken before the judge that he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the preceding section. He shall describe the property given as security, stating the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and amount of other bails entered into by him and still undischarged, and his other liabilities. The court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper. No bail shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. (13a)

Section 14. Deposit of cash as bail. — The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector or internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. (14a) Section 15. Recognizance. — Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a person in custody to his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. (15a) Section 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. — No bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so provide. When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment prescribe for the offense charged, he shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. (16a) Section 17. Bail, where filed. — (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any regional trial court of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein. (b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court where the case is pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal. (c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held. (17a) Section 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. — In the application for bail under section 8 of this Rule, the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his recommendation. (18a) Section 19. Release on bail. — The accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by the judge with whom it was filed in accordance with section 17 of this Rule.

Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge who accepted the bail shall forward it, together with the order of release and other supporting papers, to the court where the case is pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed. (19a) Section 20. Increase or reduction of bail. — After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount within a reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge, who is released without bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody. (20a) Section 21. Forfeiture of bond. — When the presence of the accused is required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If the accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must: (a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production; and (b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so. Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted. (21a) Section 22. Cancellation of bail. — Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death. The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction. In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bond. (22a) Section 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. — For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion. An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending. (23a) Section 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. — No bail shall be allowed after the judgment of conviction has become final. If before such finality, the accused has applies for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one,

the court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence. (24a) Section 25. Court supervision of detainees. — The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention. The executive judges of the Regional Trial Courts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, and municipal jails and their prisoners within their respective jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the number of detainees, inquire on their proper accommodation and health and examine the condition of the jail facilities. They shall order the segregation of sexes and of minors from adults, ensure the observance of the right of detainees to confer privately with counsel, and strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the detainees. In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme Court, the municipal trial judges or municipal circuit trial judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of the municipal jails in their respective municipalities and submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction therein. A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the executive judges to the Court Administrator which shall state the total number of detainees, the names of those held for more than thirty (30) days, the duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the cause for detention, and other pertinent information. (25a) Section 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation. — An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case. (n)

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 153675

April 19, 2007

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner, vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents. DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: For our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to nullify the two Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Manila (presided by respondent Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.) issued in Civil Case No. 99-95773. These are: (1) the Order dated December 20, 2001 allowing Juan Antonio Muñoz, private respondent, to post bail; and (2) the Order dated April 10, 2002 denying the motion to vacate the said Order of December 20, 2001 filed by the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ), petitioner. The petition alleges that both Orders were issued by respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee. The facts are: On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took effect on June 20, 1997. On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong reverted back to the People’s Republic of China and became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. On August 23, 1997 and October 25, 1999, warrants of arrest were issued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge. On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. The DOJ then forwarded the request to the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI) which, in turn, filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 19 an application for the provisional arrest of private respondent. On September 23, 1999, the RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him. On October 14, 1999, private respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest. On November 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision declaring the Order of Arrest void. On November 12, 1999, the DOJ filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 140520, praying that the Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed. On December 18, 2000, this Court rendered a Decision granting the petition of the DOJ and sustaining the validity of the Order of Arrest against private respondent. The Decision became final and executory on April 10, 2001. Meanwhile, as early as November 22, 1999, petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of private respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-95733, raffled off to Branch 10, presided by Judge Ricardo Bernardo, Jr. For his part, private respondent filed, in the same case,-a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. After hearing, or on October 8, 2001, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." On October 22, 2001, Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing Civil Case No. 99-95733. It was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided by respondent judge. On October 30, 2001, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail. This was granted by respondent judge in an Order dated December 20, 2001 allowing private respondent to post bail, thus: In conclusion, this Court will not contribute to accused’s further erosion of civil liberties. The petition for bail is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the condition that accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and answer the issues raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of this Court, will further appear for judgment. If accused fails in this undertaking, the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the government; 2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court;

3. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure order before this Court even in extradition proceeding; and 4. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire to the nearest office, at any time and day of the week; and if they further desire, manifest before this Court to require that all the assets of accused, real and personal, be filed with this Court soonest, with the condition that if the accused flees from his undertaking, said assets be forfeited in favor of the government and that the corresponding lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly. SO ORDERED. On December 21, 2001, petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge in his Order dated April 10, 2002. Hence, the instant petition. Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. In his comment on the petition, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty. Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that the right to bail shall not be impaired, thus: Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be 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. Jurisprudence on extradition is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this is not the first time that this Court has an occasion to resolve the question of whether a prospective extraditee may be granted bail. In Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo,1 this Court, speaking through then Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, later Chief Justice, held that the 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.

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" (De la Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1, 6, September 17, 1971, per Fernando,J., later CJ). 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. The provision in the Constitution stating that the "right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended" does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusfinds 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. At first glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private respondent’s case. However, this Court cannot ignore the following trends in international law: (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. The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the individual person may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root. The vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited only to states was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century. For one, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts characterized as violations of the laws of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. Recently, under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders have been persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia. These significant events show that the individual person is now a valid subject of international law. On a more positive note, also after World War II, both international organizations and states gave recognition and importance to human rights. Thus, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. 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,2 this Court, in granting bail to a prospective deportee, held that under the Constitution,3 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.

The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail. While this Court in Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings, however, in light of the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order. 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,4 have likewise been detained. Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to 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. The 1909 case of US v. Go-Sioco5 is illustrative. In this case, a Chinese facing deportation for failure to secure the necessary certificate of registration was granted bail pending his appeal. After noting that the prospective deportee had committed no crime, the Court opined that "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. In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons6 and Chirskoff v. Commission of Immigration,7 this Court ruled that foreign nationals against whom no formal criminal charges have been filed may be released on bail pending the finality of an order of deportation. As previously stated, the Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of Human Rights in sustaining the detainee’s right to bail. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue. 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. Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government." 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.8 It is not a criminal proceeding.9 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.10 It is sui generis, tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between different nations.11 It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee.12 Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character.13 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.14 But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized by the following: (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." This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best serve the interest of justice." We further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for the "provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the request for extradition;" and that release from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice rearrest and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently." Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable. Records show that private respondent was arrested on September 23, 1999, and remained incarcerated until December 20, 2001, when the trial court ordered his admission to bail. In other words, he had been detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted of any crime. By any standard, such an extended period of detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court to grant him bail. While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the Constitution.

The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the standard of due process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. As Purganancorrectly points out, it is from this major premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. 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.15 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. The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition. However, it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met. An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence." WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence." If not, the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention; and thereafter, conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch. SO ORDERED. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Asscociate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Asscociate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Asscociate Justice

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Asscociate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice

DANTE O. TINGA Asscociate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Asscociate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

Footnotes 1

G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 623, 664.

2

90 Phil. 70 (1951).

3

Sec. 2, Art. II states "The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations." 4

In cases involving quarantine to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, bail is not available. SeeState v. Hutchinson, 18 So.2d. 723, 246 Ala. 48; Varholy v. Sweat, 15 So.2d. 267, 153 Fla. 571, Baker v. Strautz, 54 NE2d. 441, 386 lll. 360. 5

12 Phil. 490 (1909).

6

Supra, footnote 2.

7

90 Phil. 256 (1951).

8

Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 US 276, 78 L. Ed. 315, 54 S. Ct. 101; Terlindon v. Ames, 184 US 270, 46 L.Ed. 534, 22 S.Ct. 484; Fong Yue Ting v. US, 149 US 698, 37 L.Ed. 905, 13 S.Ct. 1016; Fitzpatrick v. Williams, 46 F2d. 40; US v. Godwin, 97 F. Supp. 252, affd. 191 F2d. 932; Dominguez v. State, 234 SW 701, 90 Tex. Crim. 92. 9

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000, 343 SCRA 377.

10

US ex rel Oppenheim v. Hecht, 16 F2d. 955, cert den. 273 US 969, 71 L. Ed. 883, 47 S. Ct. 572.

11

State v. Chase, 107 So. 541, 91 Fla. 413; State v. Quigg, 108 So. 409, 91 Fla. 197.

12

Benson v. McMahon, 127 US 457, 32 L. Ed. 234, 8 S. Ct. 1240; Jimenez v. Aristequieta, 311 F2d. 547, stay den. 314 F2d. 649. 13

Spatola v. US, 741 F. Supp. 362, Affd. 925 F2d. 615.

14

Re Henderson, 145 NW 574, 27 ND 155; State ex rel Tresoder v. Remann, 4 P2d. 866, 165 Wash. 92.

15

Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 554 F.2d 1.