Bail Guidelines for Large-Scale Qualified Theft

The order is grounded on the constitutional rule that all persons are bailable before conviction, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong.
The order expressly relates qualified theft to Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua when qualified theft is committed under the circumstances covered by those provisions.
The order frames prosecutors as officers of the court who must assist courts by recommending appropriate bail amounts in proper cases.

Section 1 provides that no bail shall be recommended for qualified theft when the aggregate value of the property stolen is five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) and above.
The bail restriction in Section 1 applies specifically to the recommendation of bail amount by prosecutors/court actors who follow the bail bond guide being directed.
The threshold for the bail recommendation prohibition is P500,000.00 using the aggregate value of the property stolen.

Section 2 directs the Department of Justice to constitute a committee for modifying the 2000 Bail Bond Guide.
The committee’s task is to make necessary revisions regarding the bail amounts that will be recommended for relevant crimes, including qualified theft.
The modification must align with the bail restriction imposed by Section 1 insofar as the amounts of bail shall be recommended.

Section 3 amends Department of Justice Circular No. 74 dated November 6, 2001.
The amendment applies insofar as the bail bond guide involves crimes for qualified theft.
The effect of Section 3 is to adjust the DOJ’s earlier qualified theft bail guidance to conform to Memorandum Order No. 177.

Section 4 provides for separability: if any provision is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected continue in full force and effect.
Section 4 applies to the Memorandum Order’s provisions as a whole, preserving unaffected rules even if one clause is struck down.