ENRILE V. SANDIGANYAN 3rd DIV.| G.R. No.

213847|
Aug. 18, 2015| J. Bersamin
TOPIC:
FACTS: The Office of the Ombudsman charged
Respondent Enrile and several others with plunder
in the Sandiganbayan in connection with their
purported involvement in the diversion and misuse
of appropriations under the PDAF. Respondent
sought to post bail which was heard by the graft
court after his arrest.
Enrile argued, on his motions, that he should be
allowed to post bail because: (a) the Prosecution had
not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was
strong; (b) although he was charged with plunder,
the penalty as to him would only be reclusion
temporal, not reclusion perpetua; and (c) he was not
a flight risk, and his age and physical condition must
further be seriously considered.
The Sandiganbayan eventually denied Respondents
motions, resolving that: (1) the propriety of granting
bail is hinged on whether there is strong evidence of
guilt, which the prosecution is given the opportunity
to establish; (2) the presence of mitigating
circumstance/s is not taken into consideration in the
granting of bail as it is a matter pertinent in the
imposition of the proper penalty; and (3) the fact of
being not a flight risk, of old age and physical
condition are to be appreciated by the court only
when the prosecution is accorded said opportunity to
present evidence.
Thus, Respondent filed the instant petition for
certiorari asserting his right to provisional liberty.
ISSUE: W/N the Accused JPE, who is accused of
plunder, a capital offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua, may be released on bail.
HELD: The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
denying the motions interposed by the Accused
Enrile for the purpose of posting bail are set aside,
and the Accused is provisionally released upon
posting the cash bond of PhP1,000,000.00.
RATIO: On the nature and purpose of bail. The
concept of bail originates from the cardinal principle
of due process and is in line with presumption of
innocence observed in criminal. It was not
conceived to prevent the accused from committing
additional crimes. [Its] purpose is to guarantee the
appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever
so required by the trial court. The amount of bail
should be high enough to assure the presence of the
accused when so required, but it should be no higher
than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to
accommodate both the accuseds interest in his
provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the
societys interest in assuring the accuseds presence
at trial.
Bail as a matter of right or of discretion. Procedure.
The general rule is that any person, before being
convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable,
unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with
an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is
strong. Hence, from the moment he is placed under
arrest, or is detained or restrained by the officers of
the law, he can claim the guarantee of his
provisional liberty and he retains his right to bail
unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with

an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is
strong. Once it has been established that the
evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be
recognized.
On the other hand, the granting of bail is
discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment; or (2) if the RTC has imposed
a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years,
provided none of the circumstances enumerated
under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present,
as follows:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated
by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under
probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit
another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

In several cases, the Court has ruled that [i]t is

axiomatic that bail cannot be allowed when its
grant is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial
court unless there has been a hearing with notice to
the Prosecution. In this regard, the trial judge is
expected to comply with the guidelines outlined in
Cortes v. Catral, to wit:
1) in all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of
discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
the application for bail or require him to submit
his recommendation;
2) where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
hearing of the application for bail regardless of
whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
strong;
3) decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution; and,
4) if the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge
the accused upon the approval of the bail bond.
Otherwise, [the motion] should be denied.

Justifications in granting bail to Respondent Enrile.

The Prosecution did not rebut the assertions of
respondent relating to two mitigating circumstances
favorable to his cause he was already over 70
years of age at the time of the alleged commission of
the offense, and that he voluntarily surrendered.
Indeed, the presence of these mitigating
circumstances and its import in the plunder case
against respondent are questions that should be left
to the sound judgment of the trial court.
Nonetheless, [in granting this petition], the Court is
guided by the earlier mentioned principal purpose of
bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of the
accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the
court. The Court is further mindful of the
Philippines responsibility in the international
community arising from the national commitment
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which is to uphold the fundamental human rights as

well as value the worth and dignity of every person

that is recognized in Section II, Article II of the
Constitution[.] The Philippines, therefore, has the
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right
of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring
that those detained or arrested can participate in the
proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide
without delay on the legality of the detention and
order their release if justified. xxx. 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 xxx.
The Court deems in view of respondents social and
political standing and his having immediately
surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged
in court that the risk of his flight or escape from
this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal
disposition from the onset of his indictment for
plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his
utter respect for the legal processes of this country.
[The Court does] not ignore that at an earlier time
many years ago when he had been charged with
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder, he already evinced a similar personal
disposition of respect for the legal processes, and
was granted bail during the pendency of his trial
because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his
solid reputation in both his public and his private
lives, his long years of public service, and historys
judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted
bail.
The currently fragile state of Enriles health presents
another compelling justification for his admission to

bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not

recognize. The attending physician of the respondent
in the PGH considered him a geriatric patient who is
under a myriad of medical conditions and which
cannot be adequately addressed at the said
government hospital.
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused,
regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed
independently of the merits of the charge, provided
his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be
injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed,
denying him bail despite imperiling his health and
life would not serve the true objective of preventive
incarceration during the trial.
Granting bail to Enrile on the foregoing reasons is
not unprecedented. The Court has already held in
Dela Rama v. The Peoples Court: [u]nless
allowance of bail is forbidden by law in the
particular case, the illness of the prisoner,
independently of the merits of the case, is a
circumstance, and the humanity of the law makes it
a consideration which should, regardless of the
charge and the stage of the proceeding, influence the
court to exercise its discretion to admit the prisoner
to bail[.]
It must be underscored that this Court so rules in
favor of respondent in order for him to attend to
these medical conditions, and coupled with the bond
to be posted, there are guarantees for his appearance
in court for the trial, and at the same time there is
proper balancing of the interests of the public and of
the respondent concerning the guarantees of due
process as well as to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty.