Question: Can an excessive bail bond recommendation be reduced?
Scenario: Two carpenters on their way home figured in a brawl with street toughies (“istambays”). As they were constrained to defend themselves with their carpentry tools (hammers and wood chisels), they were able to inflict physical injuries to their assailants. However, the public prosecutor charged them with frustrated murder and recommended bail at P 120,000 each.
Answer: Yes. Excessive bail can be reduced. Legal basis is Sec. 20. Rule 114, The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that:
Increase or reduction of bail. – After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount within a reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge, who is released without bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.
The Civil Code of the Philippines even sanctions those who do not reduce an excessive bail:
Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
xxx xxx xxx
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
xxx xxx xxx
For a sample of a motion for reduction of bail, email askattybatoy@gmail.com.
1.) FRANCISCO YAP, JR., a.k.a. EDWIN YAP, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. G.R. No. 141529. June 6, 2001, :
… The prohibition against requiring excessive bail is enshrined in the Constitution. [8] The obvious rationale, as declared in the leading case of De la Camara vs. Enage, [9] is that imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. … x x x
2.) xxx There is grim irony in an accused being told that he has a right to bail but at the same time being required to post such an exorbitant sum. What aggravates the situation is that the lower court judge would apparently yield to the command of the fundamental law. In reality, such a sanctimonious avowal of respect for a mandate of the Constitution was on a purely verbal level. There is reason to believe that any person in the position of petitioner would under the circumstances be unable to resist thoughts of escaping from confinement, reduced as he must have been to a state of desperation. In the same breath as he was told he could be bailed out, the excessive amount required could only mean that provisional liberty would be beyond his reach. It would have been more forthright if he were informed categorically that such a right could not be availed of. There would have been no disappointment of expectations then. It does call to mind these words of Justice Jackson, a promise to the ear to be broken to the hope, a teasing illusion like a munificent bequest in a paupers will. xxx Dela Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
See also Chu vs. Dolalas, 260 SCRA 309 (1996)