ENRILE vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN: DIGEST AND COMMENTS

G.R. No. 213847; August 18, 2015

Ponente: Bersamin

Doctrines:
Primary objective of bail – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a
good measure of the accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to
the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to ensure
that the accused appears at trial.

Bail is a right and a matter of discretion – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13,
Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeted in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or
an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be
admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
the criminal prosecution.”

FACTS:
On June 5, 2014, Petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with plunder in
the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his purported involvement in the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) Scam. Initially, Enrile in an Omnibus
Motion requested to post bail, which the Sandiganbayan denied. On July 3,
2014, a warrant for Enrile's arrest was issued, leading to Petitioner's
voluntary surrender.

Petitioner again asked the Sandiganbayan in a Motion to Fix Bail which was
heard by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner argued that: (a) Prosecution had not
yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (b) that, because
of his advanced age and voluntary surrender, the penalty would only be
reclusion temporal, thus allowing for bail and; (c) he is not a flight risk due
to his age and physical condition. Sandiganbayan denied this in its assailed
resolution. Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not bail may be granted as a matter of right unless the crime
charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua where the evidence of guilt is
strong.
a. Whether or not prosecution failed to show that if ever petitioner would be
convicted, he will be punishable by reclusion perpetua.

b. Whether or not prosecution failed to show that petitioner's guilt is strong.

2. Whether or not petitioner is bailable because he is not a flight risk.

HELD:
1. YES.

Bail as a matter of right – due process and presumption of

innocence.
Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved. This right is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released
on bail.

The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial

and so the amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of
the accused when so required, but no higher than what may be reasonably
calculated to fulfill this purpose.

Bail as a matter of discretion

Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and
repeted in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit:
Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable
by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence
of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

The general rule: Any person, before conviction of any criminal offense, shall
be bailable.

Exception: Unless he is charged with an offense punishable with reclusion

perpetua [or life imprisonment] and the evidence of his guilt is strong.

Thus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been established that the
evidence of guilt is strong. Where evidence of guilt is not strong, bail
may be granted according to the discretion of the court.

Thus, Sec. 5 of Rule 114 also provides:

Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted
upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not
transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of
the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-
bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by
the appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on
provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to
the consent of the bondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years,
the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by
the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar
circumstances:

(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.

The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the
resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either
case.

Thus, admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life imprisonment,

or reclusion perpetua subject to judicial discretion. In Concerned Citizens vs.
Elma, the court held: “[S]uch discretion may be exercised only after the
hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose
of whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty.” Bail hearing with
notice is indispensable (Aguirre vs. Belmonte). The hearing should primarily
determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.

The procedure for discretionary bail is described in Cortes vs. Catral:

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 (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended);

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 for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of
evidence of the prosecution;

4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval
of the bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.
2. YES.

Petitioner's poor health justifies his admission to bail

The Supreme Court took note of the Philippine's responsibility to the
international community arising from its commitment to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. We therefore have the responsibility of
protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due
process and for detainees to avail of such remedies which safeguard their
fundamental right to liberty. Quoting from Government of Hong Kong SAR
vs. Olalia, the SC emphasized:
x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity
of every person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our
Constitution which provides: “The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights.” 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. In
other words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make
available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard
their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be
admitted to bail. (emphasis in decision)

Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of

discretion
Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the
appearance of the accused during the trial and unwarrantedly disregarded
the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Petitioner. As
such the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion
to Fix Bail. It acted whimsically and capriciously and was so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty [to allow petitioner to post
bail].