Case Summary (G.R. No. 79269)
Effect of Executive Order No. 187
The President’s EO 187 restored the original penalty for rebellion (prision mayor and fine), converting the offense from capital to non-capital. As a consequence, under the 1987 Constitution and Rule 114, rebellion became bailable as a matter of right, shifting from discretionary to absolute bail entitlement.
Right to Bail under the 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution guarantees bail to all persons charged with non-capital offenses before conviction. The sole exception is when an offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt is strong. Bail cannot be impaired even during suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; excessive bail is forbidden.
Discretionary vs. Absolute Bail
- Capital offenses (reclusion perpetua) with strong evidence of guilt: bail is discretionary and may be denied.
- Non-capital offenses: bail is a matter of right. Once the crime’s penalty falls below reclusion perpetua, entitlement to bail is absolute and no hearing on guilt is required.
Guidelines for Fixing Bail
Rule 114, Section 10, prescribes factors in fixing bail (nature and circumstances of the crime, character of the accused, weight of evidence, flight risk, etc.). Due process requires that the prosecution be afforded reasonable time to present evidence on these factors when bail is discretionary or when fixing the amount. A court cannot arbitrarily set bail without hearing relevant evidence.
Waiver of the Right to Bail
The Court held that Salas validly waived his bail right in G.R. No. 76009 by agreeing “to remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having custody over his person.” A waiver of a personal constitutional right is permissible if voluntary, intentional, not contrary to law or public policy, and not prejudicial to third parties. Here, “legal custody” meant physical detention, and Salas’s subsequent motions (to qua
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 79269)
Facts
- On October 2, 1986, the Regional Trial Court, Branch XII, Manila, filed Criminal Case No. 86-48926 charging Rodolfo C. Salas alias “Commander Bilog” and co-accused with rebellion under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The Information alleged that Salas, as a leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its New People’s Army, took up arms against the Philippine Government since 1968 to overthrow it, committing acts of violence and property destruction.
- Salas had escaped earlier from military custody; he was recaptured on September 29, 1986, at the Philippine General Hospital—whereupon a ₱250,000 reward for his arrest was noted.
Procedural History
- October 3, 1986: Petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. 76009) filed; October 16, 1986: Dismissed on agreement that Salas remain in legal custody while co-accused Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion be released.
- November 7, 1986: Salas filed a Motion to Quash the Information; March 6, 1987: Trial court denied the motion.
- May 9, 1987: Salas petitioned for bail; May 27, 1987: Prosecution opposed, arguing rebellion was capital after P.D. Nos. 1996, 942 and 1834.
- June 5, 1987: Executive Order 187 repealed those decrees and restored rebellion’s penalty to prision mayor and fine, making it bailable.
- July 7, 1987: Trial court granted bail at ₱30,000 with reporting conditions.
- July 16 & 17, 1987: Prosecution moved for reconsideration—first to increase bail to ₱100,000, then to present evidence to deny bail.
- July 30, 1987: Trial court denied supplemental motion but increased bail to ₱50,000.
- August 11, 1987: Supreme Court issued TRO; parties filed comments, replies, memoranda were waived.
- May 30, 1990: Solicitor General supported petition to nullify bail orders.
- June 5, 1991: Supreme Court, en banc, promulgated final decision.
Issues
- Whether a person charged with a bailable offense (rebellion, post-E.O. 187) may be denied bail under exceptional circumstances or may waive the right.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence to oppose bail.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in fixing and increasing bail without hearing prosecutorial evidence on bail factors.
- Whether private respondent Salas effectively waived his right to bail by his agreement in