People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515 (1956)
ISSUE: Whether or not Hernandez is entitled to right to bail
It was held that the murders, arsons and robberies committed are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed as means necessary for the perpetration of the said offense of rebellion and that the crime charged is simple rebellion and in conformity with the policy of the court in dealing with accused person amenable to a similar punishment, Hernandez should then be allowed bail. Although such may risk the security of the State given the crime involved, it was also held in Montano v. Ocampo that, “ * to deny bail it is not enough that the evidence of guilt is strong; it must also appear that in case of conviction the defendant's criminal liability would probably call for a capital punishment. No clear or conclusive showing before this Court has been made.” It must be noted that Hernandez was sentenced not to the extreme penalty but to life imprisonment. Individual freedom is too basic , too transcendental and vital in a Republican State, like ours, to be denied upon mere general principles and abstract consideration of public safety. Indeed , the preservation of liberty is such a major preoccupation of our political system that, not satisfied with the guarantee of enjoyment in the very first paragraph of the Bill of Rights the framers of our constitution devoted other parts of which to the protection of several aspects of freedom. It should be noted that Hernandez has already been detained for more than 5 years and it would still take some time to dispose of the case. The decision appealed from the opposition to the motion in question do not reveal satisfactorily and concrete, positive act of the accused showing, sufficiently, that his provincial release, during the pendency of the appeal, would jeopardize the security of the State.