BAIL; THE ENRILE CASE:

It is the Philippine’s responsibility in the international community under

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of protecting and promoting the right of
every person to liberty and due process. Such responsibility involves the obligation to
make available to every person under detention remedies which safeguard their
fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail”.
Moreover, Enrile is not a flight risk because of his social and political standing and
his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged in court.
Finally, the currently fragile state of Enrile’s health is a compelling justification for
his admission to bail.

THE OLALIA CASE; Bail re Extradition:

It said that while our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an
extraditee, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right
under the Constitution.

It further said that even if a potential extradite 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. It added that “extradition is not a trial to determine
the guilt or innocence of potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one
that is merely administrative in character. (GR No. 153675, Government of Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region v. Judge Olalia, Jr. and Muñoz, April 19, 2007)

*****

THE ARROYO CASE; Demurrer to Evidence; Certiorari:

- Certiorari is proper since the Sandiganbayan gravely

abused its discretion in denying GMA’s demurrer to evidence.

- General rule: The special civil action for certiorari is

generally not proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by
the trial court because of the availability of another remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules
of Court expressly provides, “the order denying the motion for leave
of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not
be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.

- Exception: the writ will be granted where necessary to

prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial” (citing Ong v.
People [G.R. No. 140904, October 9, 2000]). Thus, notwithstanding
the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrers
to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves
of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.

* ****
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THE DEMURRER IS
GRANTED AND THE ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED?
 The accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court declares that the act
or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

 If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only granting the demurrer to evidence of the
accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability of the accused to the private offended party, said
judgment on its civil case would be a nullity for violation of the rights of the accused to due process.

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF

THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IS DENIED?
 As a general rule, there can be no appeal or certiorari on the denial of the demurrer to evidence, since it
is an interlocutory order which doesn’t pass judgment on the merits of the case

 In such instance, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on his
behalf not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect of the
case
appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an accused’s
demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered void
judgment, does not result in jeopardy. Thus, when the order of dismissal is
annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via
certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.

X x x.
a)
Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the
judge after anexamination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses, we have ruled that a hearingis not necessary for its determination. b)

It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and
supporting documents
showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment and then issue a
warrant of arrest. Or, if he findsno probable cause, he can require submission
of additional affidavits of the witnesses.c) The judge
’
s review of the Information and other supporting documents was clearly set
forth in his order.d) Such issues are questions of fact and are not within
the purview of a petition for certiorari