4. Guidelines in Fixing Amount

TOTALITY RULE

Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demands shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. (B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 33[1]; Pantranco North Express v. Standard Insurance, G.R. No. 140746, 2005)

The judge shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to the following factors:

• Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
• Nature and circumstances of the offense;
• Penalty for the offense charged;
• Character and reputation of the accused;
• Age and health of the accused;
• Weight of the evidence against the accused;
• Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
• Forfeiture of other bail;
• The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
• Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail (Rule 114, Sec. 9)

It is settled that the amount of bail should be reasonable at all times. In implementing this mandate, regard should be taken of the prisoner’s pecuniary circumstances. We point out that what is reasonable bail to a man of wealth may be unreasonable to a poor man charged with a like offense. Thus, the right to bail should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is relatively excessive. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the defendant when required, but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Also, while the DOJ Bail Bond Guide is persuasive, it is not binding upon the courts. (Tanog v. Balindong, G.R. No. 187464, 2015)

Excessive bail shall not be required. (Rule 114, Sec. 9)

The principal factor considered is the probability of the appearance of the accused, or of his flight to avoid punishment. (Villaseñor v. Abano, G.R. No. L23599, 1967)

Whatever the fiscal recommends as the amount of bail for the provisional release of an accused is only recommendatory. The Judge still retains the discretion to apply the precedents laid down by the SC regarding the reasonable nature of the bail to be required. It is not bound by the Fiscal’s recommendation. (Amaya v. Ordoñez, G.R. No. 80906, 1988)

Note: A clear showing of fragile health justifies one’s admission to bail.

The court recognizes the country’s responsibility to the international community which arises from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This national commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing:

• that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
• that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances. (Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 2015)

Qualifications of sureties in property bond

• Each must be a resident owner of real property within the Philippines.
• Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of the undertaking.
• If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than that expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums be equivalent to the whole amount of the bail demanded.
• Every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and above all just debts, obligations and properties exempt from execution.

Note: The order fixing the amount of bail is not appealable. (Section 4 of Guidelines)