ENRILE vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN: DIGEST AND COMMENTS HELD:
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 byreclusion 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.
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 perpetuasubject 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 fromGovernment 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].
-o0o-
LEONEN DISSENT
Justice Leonen criticized the decision for having a very weak legal
basis – the grant of bail over mere humanitarian grounds. He also
claims that the court has no authority to use humanitarian
grounds. Leonen argues that “[Petitioner's] release for medical or
humanitarian reasons was not the basis for his prayer in his Motion
to Fix Bail before the Sandiganbayan,” nor were these grounds
raised in the petition in the Supreme Court.
“Bail for humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided
in our Rules of Court nor found in any statute or provision of the
Constitution.”
Leonen theorized that the Supreme Court only granted bail as a
special accomodation for the petitioner and he goes on to criticize
the decision to wit:
[This decision] will usher in an era of truly selective justice not
based on their legal provisions, but one that is unpredictable,
partial and solely grounded on the presence or absence of human
compassion.
xxx
Worse, it puts pressure on all trial courts and the Sandiganbayan
that will predictably be deluged with motions to fix bail on the
basis of humanitarian considerations. The lower courts will have to
decide, without guidance, whether bail should be granted because
of advanced age, hypertension, pneumonia, or dreaded diseases.
They will have to decide whether this is applicable only to Senators
and former Presidents charged with plunder and not to those
accused of drug trafficking, multiple incestuous rape, … and other
crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment...
Procedure for granting bail
Leonen's dissent also examines the procedure outlined for the
lower courts in bail cases in order to demonstrate that the
Sandiganbayan did not err in denying Petitioner's Motion to Fix
Bail. In Cortes vs. Catral the Supreme Court held:
It is indeed surprising, not to say, alarming, that the Court should
be besieged with a number of administrative cases filed against
erring judges involving bail. After all, there is no dearth of
jurisprudence on the basic principles involving bail. As a matter of
fact, the Court itself, through its Philippine Judicial Academy, has
been including lectures on the subject in the regular seminars
conducted for judges. Be that as it may, we reiterate the following
duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is filed:
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.
With such succinct but clear rules now incorporated in the Rules of
Court, trial judges are enjoined to study them as well and be
guided accordingly. Admittedly, judges cannot be held to account
for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith, but this defense
is much too frequently cited even if not applicable. A number of
cases on bail having already been decided, this Court justifiably
expects judges to discharge their duties assiduously. For judge is
called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be
conversant with basic legal principles. Faith in the administration of
justice can only be engendered if litigants are convinced that the
members of the Bench cannot justly be charge with a deficiency in
their grasp of legal principles.
Petitioner in this case, insisted that the Sandiganbayan grant his
bail without any hearing for the purpose of determining whether
the evidence of guilt is strong. At the Motion to Fix Bail, the
prosecution had no opportunity to present any evidence because
of the prematurity of Petitioner's Motion [to Fix Bail]. Thus, the
dissent asserts that the Sandiganbayan was correct in denying the
Motion based on prematurity.
Medical or humanitarian grounds inappropriate
Petitioner did not ask for bail to be granted based on humanitarian
reasons at the Sandiganbayan. Neither petitioner nor the
prosecution were able to develop their arguments as to this point
to establish legal and factual basis for this kind of bail.
The dissent argues that it was inappropriate for the court to grant
bail merely on the basis of the certification of the attending
physician, Dr. Gonzales, stating that the Petitioner was suffering
from numerous debilitating conditions. The dissent states that:
Nowhere in the rules of procedure do we allow the grant of bail
based on judicial notice of a doctor's certification. In doing so, we
effectively suspend our rules on evidence by doing away with Furthermore, in the above case, the SC disposed of it by remanding
cross-examination and authentication of Dr. Gonzales' findings on the case back to the lower court for factual determination of
petitioner's health in a hearing whose main purpose is to whether or not the accused was a flight risk.
determine whether no kind of alternative detention is possible.

xxx

The better part of prudence is that we follow strictly our well-

entrenched, long-standing, and canonical procedures for bail.
Doctrinally, the matter to determine is whether the evidence of
guilt is strong. This is to be examined when a hearing is granted as
a mandatory manner after petition for bail is filed by accused. The
medical condition of the accused, if any, should be pleaded and
heard.

asgasgf
Version of the decision submitted by Ponente was not the version
deliberated upon
This section of the dissent reveals that the Justices voted to grant
bail based on a substantially different version of the opinion, one
which did not use humanitarian considerations as a ground for the
granting of bail. The dissent explains that the Justices voted 8-4
solely on the issue of whether or not bail is a matter of right and
reveals that the copy offered for signature was substantially similar
to an earlier draft which used humanitarian considerations as the
basis for the granting of bail. The dissent makes it clear that this
was an irregularity.

The majority opinion offers no “guidance”

The dissent argues that the main opinion is unclear whether the
privilege (humanitarian considerations, right to bail, etc.) will apply
to those who have similar conditions. Whether or not this privilege
will only apply to those undergoing trial for plunder or whether or
not this privilege can be granted to those of advanced age only.
“The majority has perilously set an unstated if not ambiguous
standard for the special grant of bail on the ground of medical
conditions.”

There is also no guidance to the Sandiganbayan as to if, when and

how bail can then be canceled.

Reliance on HK vs Olalia misplaced

The reliance of the majority on the case of Government of Hong
Kong SAR vs. Olalia is misplaced because this case referred to
extradition cases, hence its increased emphasis on international
law. As applied to crimes charged under Philippine law, the
remedies under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must
be qualified by the Constitution's rules regarding bail.