The New Bail Bond Guide
The recommendations under the Bail Guide are just, well, recommendations. They do not bind the courts.
Published in Daily Tribune on July 10, 2020
by: Emmanuel Emigdio Dumlao
Under the Constitution, all powers of government are vested in three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. In the context of the criminal justice system, it is the duty of the Legislature to make laws defining and prescribing penalties for crimes; of the Executive to enforce the law and prosecute violations thereof; and of the Judiciary to hold trials and interpret the law. Following the principle of separation of powers, which grants each department exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, each is supreme within its own sphere.
In the exercise of their respective powers, the Supreme Court (SC), part of the Judiciary, and the Department of Justice (DoJ), part of the Executive, issued guidelines and rules for the prosecution and trial of criminal cases. Such issuances, unfortunately, do not always go hand in hand.
Case in point, the DoJ recently issued the New Bail Bond Guide (Bail Guide), which prescribes the amount of bail that prosecutors may recommend for certain crimes. Meanwhile, the SC issued the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Crimpro Rules) and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Summary Rules).
Under the Rules issued by the SC, there are crimes in which an accused need not be arrested or detained during trial. The DoJ’s Bail Guide, however, recommends bail for the same crimes. Given that bail is defined as property or money given to secure the provisional liberty of a detention prisoner, why would it be necessary to recommend bail when the accused need not be arrested or detained?
For example, if — without causing injury to another person — you negligently hit another vehicle while you’re driving, you could be charged with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property — a crime punishable by a mere fine. For this case, the Bail Guide prescribes bail at 10 percent of the fine or up to P120,000, whichever is lower. However, Rule 112 of the Crimpro Rules, states that no warrant of arrest is required for offenses penalized by a mere fine. Certainly, if the arrest or detention of the accused is not necessary, there is no need for bail.
For violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22), the Bail Guide recommends bail of P6,000 for every P40,000 of the face value of the check in question, not to exceed P120,000. The SC’s Summary Rules, however, state that no warrant of arrest shall be issued for cases under the scope of such Summary Rules, which include violations of BP 22. Again, bail is simply not necessary in this case.
This seeming innocuous conflict is detrimental to the speedy disposition of cases because now, courts need additional hearing dates to settle the issue of bail even for cases where there was no need for bail in the first place. There is also the possibility that if the prosecutor recommends bail unnecessarily, a warrant of arrest could be mistakenly issued. The poor accused would then be unjustly required to post bail. If unable to, he could be detained — at least for the time it takes to clarify the matter.
So, which one should prevail?
The recommendations under the Bail Guide are just, well, recommendations. They do not bind the courts. Moreover, the Constitution expressly provides that the SC shall have the power to promulgate rules involving the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and admission to the practice of law. As such, the rules enacted by the SC in relation to its constitutional mandate should control over conflicting issuances made by the Executive or Legislative.
While the intention of the DoJ in issuing the Bail Guide is laudable, it should be made clear that no bail is necessary for crimes which, under SC Rules, do not call for the arrest or detention of an accused. Otherwise, it opens an avenue for confusion among courts, defense counsels, and prosecutors. If the enacted laws, promulgated rules, and issued guidelines do not advance our criminal justice system, what are they for?
*To date, the author has not found any clarificatory issuance from the DoJ or SC to address the points raised in the article.
(Atty. Dumlao is a Junior Associate of Parker Faustino Pagayatan Law Offices.
Emman obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree from San Beda College of Law in 2017. As a law student, he represented his alma mater and the Philippines in national and international debate competitions. He likewise serves as the Data Protection Officer of a reputable tertiary hospital. His practice areas in the Firm include corporate law and compliance, taxation, civil, criminal and administrative litigation, labor, immigration, family law, health care, and data privacy.)
————
