CASE DIGESTS

REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RULE 114 BAIL
RULE 115 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
RULE 117 MOTION TO QUASH
RULE 118 PRE-TRIAL





Submitted by:

TRIZIA GLAE R. TUBUNGBANUA
LLB- II



Submitted to:

JUDGE DANTE DALMAN
Instructor, Criminal Procedure
RULE 114
BAIL

Teodoro C. Borlongan, J r. et al. vs. Magdaleno M. Pea, et al., G.R. No. 143591, May 5, 2010.

Facts:

Respondent Magdaleno Pea instituted a civil case for recovery of agents compensation
and expenses, damages, and attorneys fees, against Urban Bank and the petitioners, before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City.
Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency, allegedly
entered into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to
prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Banks property located
along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.
Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash: They insist that they were denied due
process because of the non-observance of a proper procedure on preliminary investigation
prescribed in the Rules of Court; since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents were
submitted by the petitioners, the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and
attachments of the respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the
Rules. Moreover they claim that the respondents affidavit was not based on the latters personal
knowledge and therefore should not have been used by the court in determining probable cause.
On the same day that the Omnibus Motion to Quash was filed, the petitioners posted bail.
Their bail bonds expressly provided that they do not intend to waive their right to question the
validity of their arrest. On the date of arraignment, the petitioners refused to enter their plea, for
the obvious reason that the legality of their information and their arrest was yet to be settled by
the court.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners posting of bail constitutes a waiver of their right to
question the validity of their arrest?

Ruling:

The erstwhile ruling of this Court was that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of any
irregularity in the issuance of a warrant of arrest has already been superseded by Section 26,
Rule 114 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure. The principle that the accused is precluded
from questioning the legality of the arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters
his plea and participates during trial without previously invoking his objections thereto. Section
26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is a new one, intended to modify
previous rulings of this Court that an application for bail or the admission to bail by the accused
shall be considered as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest on the
legalities or irregularities thereon. The new rule has reverted to the ruling of this Court in People
v. Red. The new rule is curative in nature because, precisely, it was designed to supply defects
and curb evils in procedural rules. Thus, petitioners posting of bail bond should not be deemed
as a waiver of their right to assail their arrest.
G.R. No. 196161 September 26, 2012 CYRIL CALPITO QUI, vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES


Facts:

Petitioner was charged with two counts of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of
Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
On June 18, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94 in Quezon City convicted
petitioner as charged, and sentenced her to two equal periods of imprisonment for an
indeterminate penalty of five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty one (21) days of prision
correccional in its maximum period, as minimum, to seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day of prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum.
On July 1, 2010, petitioner filed her Notice of Appeal. With the perfection of her appeal
and the consequent elevation of the case records to the CA, petitioner posthaste filed before the
appellate court an Urgent Petition/Application for Bail Pending Appeal which respondent People
of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed. The OSG urged
for the denial of the bail application on the ground of petitioners propensity to evade the law and
that she is a flight-risk, as she in fact failed to attend several hearings before the RTC resulting in
the issuance of three warrants for her arrest.
On December 17, 2010, the CA issued the first assailed Resolution denying petitioners
application for bail pending appeal on the basis of Sec. 5(d) of Rule 114, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was likewise rejected through the
March 17, 2011 CA Resolution.

Issue:

Whether petitioner is entitled to bail pending appeal?

Ruling:

Wherefore, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
The CA properly exercised its discretion in denying petitioners application for bail
pending appeal. The CAs determination as to petitioner being a high risk for flight is not
without factual mooring. Indeed, the undisputed fact that petitioner did not attend the hearings
before the RTC, which compelled the trial court to issue warrants for her arrest, is undeniably
indicative of petitioners propensity to trifle with court processes. This fact alone should weigh
heavily against a grant of bail pending appeal.