Feliciano v. Pasicolan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pablo Feliciano was among eighteen individuals charged with kidnapping with murder in an amended information filed on October 24, 1958. Upon learning of the information and the issuance of an arrest warrant, Feliciano went into hiding. Procedural History: On October 30, 1958, Feliciano's counsel filed a motion seeking to have the bail bond for his release pending trial fixed at P10,000.00. The Provincial Fiscal opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as Feliciano had not yet been arrested. The respondent Judge dismissed the motion, stating that Feliciano had no right to ask for bail pending his arrest or surrender. The Petition: Feliciano filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to decide his motion for bail on the merits, contending that the refusal to decide violated his constitutional right to bail.
Issue(s)
Whether a person who has been charged with a crime but remains at large and in hiding has the right to apply for and be admitted to bail via a motion to fix the bail amount.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. The petitioner failed to make sufficient showing to entitle him to the remedy prayed for.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's motion was premature because the right to bail only accrues when a person is deprived of his liberty. Relying on Rule 110, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court defined bail as security required for the release of a person who is in the 'custody of the law.' The Court reasoned that it would be fundamentally 'incongruous' to grant bail to an individual who is already physically free and evading the jurisdiction of the court. Citing the precedent in Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, the Court clarified that while the constitutional mandate is broad, it only becomes relevant when a person is arrested, detained, or otherwise restrained by law enforcement. The Court further applied the ruling in Manigbas v. Luna, which explicitly states that the right to bail does not exist where there is no deprivation of liberty to be released from. Consequently, because the petitioner was hiding and refused to surrender, he was not under the custody of the law and had no standing to compel the respondent Judge to fix his bail.
Main Doctrine
The right to bail only accrues when a person is arrested or deprived of his liberty. A petition for admission to bail filed by a person who is at large and has not surrendered to the custody of the law is premature.