Enrile v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No.

213847

Date of Promulgation: August 18, 2015

Ponente: Bersamin, J
Petition: Certiorari
Petitioner: Juan Ponce Enrile
Respondents: Sandiganbayan (Third Division), and People of the Philippines

Facts:
On June 5, 2014 Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged by the Office of the
Ombudsman with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his
purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under
the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The case is a petition for
certiorari to annul the decision of the Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to
fix bail and Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds: (a) The
prosecution failed to show conclusively that Enrile, if ever convicted, is
punishable by reclusion perpetua; (b) The prosecution failed to show that
evidence of Enriles guilt is strong; (c) Enrile is not a flight risk.

Issue:
Whether or not Enrile can bail -YES

Ruling:
The purpose of the bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the
trial.
It is the Philippines responsibility in the international community under the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights .of protecting and promoting the
right of every person to liberty and due processunder the 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.
Enrile is not a flight risk because of his social and political standing and his
having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged in
court.
The currently fragile state of Enriles health is a compelling justification for
his admission to bail. (Chronic hypertension, diffuse atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease, Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmia, etc.)

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the crime charged is plunder and
the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The grant of bail is a special
accommodation for the petitioner.
The prosecution should have been given the opportunity to rebut the
allegation that petitioner suffers from medical conditions.
The invocation of a general human rights principle does not provide clear
legal basis for the grant of bail on humanitarian grounds. It is neither
presently provided in our Rules of Court nor found in any statue or provision
of the Constitution. This sets a dangerous precedent for the granting of bail
on the basis of humanitarian conditions, which is determined by the personal
discretion of the trial judge.
The grant of provisional liberty to petitioner without any determination of
whether the evidence of guilt is strong violates the clear and unambiguous
text of the constitution.

JOSE ANTONIO LEVISTE,

- versus -

THE COURT OF APPEALS

and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.

Facts:
Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste
was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime
of homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years
and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of
reclusion temporal as maximum.

He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, he

filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal, citing his
advanced age and health condition, and claiming the absence of any risk or
possibility of flight on his part.

The Court of Appeals denied petitioners application for bail. It invoked

the bedrock principle in the matter of bail pending appeal, that the discretion
to extend bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with grave
caution and only for strong reasons.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied
Issue:
Whether or not bail should automatically be granted absent any of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court filed by an appellant pending appeal?
RULING:
NO. Absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 means that a less stringent approach in granting bail
only subject to the discretion of the court to grant bail.
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 5. 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.
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 a 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.

Under the present revised Rule 114, the availability of bail to an accused
may be summarized in the following rules:

xxx xxx xxx

e. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court wherein a penalty of

imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years is imposed, and
not one of the circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar
circumstance is present and proved, bail is a matter of discretion (Sec. 5);

f. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court imposing a penalty of

imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years, and any of the
circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is present
and proved, no bail shall be granted by said court (Sec. 5); x x x 1[24]
(emphasis supplied)

The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where
the penalty imposed on the appellant applying for bail is imprisonment
exceeding six years. The first scenario deals with the circumstances
enumerated in the said paragraph (namely, recidivism, quasi-recidivism,

1
habitual delinquency or commission of the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration; previous escape from legal confinement, evasion
of sentence or violation of the conditions of his bail without a valid
justification; commission of the offense while under probation, parole or
conditional pardon; circumstances indicating the probability of flight if
released on bail; undue risk of committing another crime during the
pendency of the appeal; or other similar circumstances) not present. The
second scenario contemplates the existence of at least one of the said
circumstances.

In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means
that, if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant
or deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be denied even if
the bail-negating2[26] circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule
114 are absent. In other words, the appellate courts denial of bail pending
appeal where none of the said circumstances exists does not, by and of
itself, constitute abuse of discretion.

On the other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court exercises a
more stringent discretion, that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the
enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other
option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Conversely, if the
appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion will
thereby be committed.

Given these two distinct scenarios, therefore, any application for bail
pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1) the
determination of discretion stage, where the appellate court must determine
whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule
114 is present; this will establish whether or not the appellate court will
exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application
for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of discretion stage where,
assuming the appellants case falls within the first scenario allowing the
exercise of sound discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant
circumstances, other than those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section
5, Rule 114, including the demands of equity and justice; on the basis
thereof, it may either allow or disallow bail.

On the other hand, if the appellants case falls within the second scenario,
the appellate courts stringent discretion requires that the exercise thereof
be primarily focused on the determination of the proof of the presence of any
of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance of bail. This is so

2
because the existence of any of those circumstances is by itself sufficient to
deny or revoke bail. Nonetheless, a finding that none of the said
circumstances is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail.
Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent sound
discretion approach.