Is the Bail System Anti-Poor?

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. It assures the
court of his or her appearance as required under the conditions specified by the court. It may be
given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit or recognizance. Bail is
guaranteed by Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and it states: “Section
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.” Hence, bail is a constitutional right afforded for all of the accused no matter what his
or her social standing, except in cases of capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong.
Bail is a matter of right when the crime is not a capital offense and it is a matter of discretion
when the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, when
the evidence of guilt is not strong.

The nature of detention is not the same with serving sentence. When the case is pending
and the accused cannot afford bail or his offense is non-bailable, he is in detention. On the other
hand, he is serving sentence when the accused becomes convicted or when he is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime imputed on him, and the order of the Court becomes final
and executory.

The bail system in the Philippines is not anti-poor. The amount of bail that the rich will
pay for a particular crime is the same as what the poor will pay. There is no rich or poor in the
eyes of the law and this is in consonance with the equal protection of the law stated in Section 1,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which reads: “Section 1, No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.” Equal protection of the law means that the court or governing body
must treat an individual in the same manner as other in similar conditions and circumstances.

The amount of bail for particular crimes that an accused can avail is primarily based on
the penalty imposed under the law, it is under the Department of Justice’s Department Order No.
013 or the 2018 New Bail Bond Guide. On the account that the bail system is anti-poor because
of the fact that it is the poor who cannot afford to pay the recommended bail, the law has given
mechanisms in order for the poor to be able to afford temporary liberty while his or her case is
pending. To reiterate, the rich and the poor is equal in the eyes of the law, on any instances, the
accused may have or have done the crime imputed on him, hence no matter his or her social
standing is, he or she should pay the same, otherwise, the court will not have any mechanism to
ensure the appearance of a person charged with a crime before the court. It would be
discriminatory and violative of the equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution if the
bail were to be based on the accused’s income because bail is not based on a person’s ability to
earn.

On the occasion that the poor cannot afford to pay his or her bail, he or she can always
ask the court to reduce his bail by filing a motion to reduce bail and state therein that he has no
capacity to pay the bail and his circumstances. A certificate of indigency from the punong
barangay where the accused lives is usually attached with this motion. This motion is usually
approved when proven in court and when the prosecutor has no objection to it. He or she can
also avail of a bail bond from bonding company accredited by the Supreme Court, or he or she
can ask the court to allow him or her to pay the bail in terms. When the accused cannot really
afford the bail, he can ask the court for him or her to be released by filing a motion to release on
recognizance wherein he will be under the supervision and guidance of his or her lawyer or
someone that the court appointed for him or her, who will ensure the accused’s appearance in
court and to vouch that he or she will surrender the accused when found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and when the resolution of the court becomes final and executory.
Recognizance is the decision of the court to allow a person charged with a crime to remain at
liberty pending the trial, without having to post bail, stated in RA No. 10389 or “The
Recognizance Act of 2012.”

It is true that the justice system in the Philippines is a bit slow and cases may take years
before it is fully resolved by the court, it cannot be avoided that there are cases wherein a
detained person has served and exceeded the maximum penalty for the crime imputed on him.
On these circumstances, it is the duty of the lawyer to look-out for that, he should file writ of
habeas corpus and present a proof from the jail or detention facility, that he has served or
exceeded the maximum penalty, in sentencing there is this “sentence served” wherein the court
will order the release of the accused when it notices that the days in detention have exceeded the
penalty for the crime imputed on him.

Regarding the excess time that an accused spent in detention, he may apply for
compensation to the Department of Justice, under RA No. 7309, also known as, “An Act
Creating a Board of Claims Under the Department of Justice for Victims of Unjust Imprisonment
or Detention and Victims of Violent Crimes and for Other Purposes.” On the occasion wherein
the monetary compensation is not enough, the accused who have been detained that was
subsequently acquitted by the court may file for a separate civil action for damages against the
complainant for the damages that the accused incurred from the wrongful suit imputed against
him or her. Furthermore, the accused can file a criminal case against the complainant, according
to Lu Chu Sing and Lu Tian Chiong v. Lu Tiong Hui, “under the Revised Penal Code, one who
falsely accuses another of a crime may be held liable either for libel or for perjury, depending
upon the manner or form in which the act is committed.” Hence, the accused who had been
acquitted can file a case of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code which states
that: “False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation – The penalty of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional in its minimum period, shall be
imposed upon any person who, knowingly make untruthful statements and not being
included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an
affidavit, upon any material matter before competent person authorized to administer an
oath in cases in which the law so requires. Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation
made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any falsehoods mentioned made in this and the three
preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.” He or
she can also file libel against the complainant under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code
which states that: “ Definition of libel – A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

In conclusion, the bail system is not anti-poor, the law has laid down mechanisms for the poor to
afford temporary liberty while his or her case is pending. The law also laid down mechanisms
that the accused can afford in order to compensate his or her wrongful detention or over-
detention. The bail system or the law does not distinguish between the poor and the rich, as the
maxim goes: dura lex sed lex, the law may be harsh, but it is the law.