SY GUAN (ALIAS LIM HONG), PETITIONER, VS. RAFAEL AMPARO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Sy Guan alias Lim Hong is under prosecution with two others for
visiting an opium den. The case is now pending in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, to which the accused appealed from a sentence of one month and one day
of imprisonment imposed by the municipal court. Having failed to appear in the
Court of First Instance when the cause was called for trial, Sy Guan’s bond, for
P300, was ordered forfeited and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Upon being
rearrested, this prisoner offered to put up a new bond. The offer was rejected
by the Honorable Rafael Amparo, Judge, “in view of the fact that Sy Guan has
heretofore jumped his bail.”

The upshot is the present petition for certiorari, alleging lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy is mandamus, and, as the application
contains sufficient allegations essential in a petition of this character, we
shall consider this proceeding as one to compel the respondent judge to admit
the petitioner to bail.

The petitioner denies that he fled or avoided going to trial. He alleges
misunderstanding on his part and change of address as the cause of his
nonappearance. The point is unimportant. Assuming for the sake of this case that
the petitioner purposely “jumped” his bail, that fact does not operate as a
forfeiture of his right to temporary liberty. Except where bail is a matter of
right, irrespective of such circumstance the breach of a prior bond is a
compelling reason for the refusal of bail in the same cause. But where bail is a
matter of right and prior absconding and forfeiture is not excepted from such
right bail must be allowed irrespective of such circumstance. (8 C. J. S., 77;
Rowan vs. Randolph , 268 Fed., 527.)

Bail before conviction is a constitutional right of an accused, except in
prosecutions for capital offenses where the proof of guilt is strong. (Article
III, section 1, paragraph 16, Philippine Constitution.) Other than this, the
Constitution makes no exceptions. The existence of high degree of probability
that the defendant will abscond confers upon the court no greater discretion
than to increase the bond to such an amount as would reasonably tend to assure
the presence of the defendant when it is wanted, such amount to be subject, of
course, to the other provision of the same section and paragraph cited, that
excessive bail shall not be required.”

It is ordered that the petitioner be released upon filing a new bond with
sufficient sureties, without special judgment as to costs.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, and Bengzon,
JJ., concur.

PARAS, J., concurs in the result.