Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

ENRILE VS SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE - Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an

PHILIPPINES accused is entitled to bail as matter of right.


- Petition for certiorari filed by Enrile to assail and annul - Ombudsman:
the resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan where he o Right to bail is discretionary as he is charged
has been charged with plunder with a capital offense
Facts: o Bail hearing is mandatory to determine whether
- Office of Ombudsman charged Enrile with plunder there is strong evidence of his guilt
- Basis: purported involvement in the diversion and misuse o Entitlement to bail considers the imposable
of appropriations under the Priority Development penalty, regardless of the attendant
Assistance Fund (PDAF) circumstances
- Enrile: Omnibus Motion to be allowed to post bail should Ruling
probable cause be found against him 1. Bail protects the right of the accused to due process and
- Sandiganbayan: denied Enrile’s motion to be presumed innocent
o Premature considering Enrile had not yet then  Presumption of innocence: rooted in the guarantee of
voluntarily surrendered or been placed under due process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional
the custody of the law right to be released on bail
- Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Enrile  Bail
- Enrile voluntarily surrendered to Director Magalong of o Not granted to prevent the accused from
CIDG committing additional crimes
o Confined at the PNP General Hospital following o Purpose: guarantee the appearance of the
his medical examination accused at the trial
- Enrile: Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital  Amount of bail
and Motion to Fix Bail o High enough to assure the presence of the
o The Prosecution had not yet established that the accused when so required
evidence of his guilt was strong o Not higher than is reasonably calculated
o Although he was charged with plunder, the  Bail acts: reconciling mechanism to accommodate both:
penalty as to him would only be reclusion o the accused’s interest in his provisional liberty
temporal before or during the trial; and
 Basis: over 70 years old and he o the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s
voluntarily surrendered presence at trial
o He was not a flight risk and his age and physical 2. Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion
condition must further be considered  Right to bail is expressly afforded by Section 12, Article III
- Sandiganbayan: denied motion to fix bail of the Constitution
o It is only after the prosecution shall have  General rule: Any person, before being convicted of any
presented its evidence and the Court shall have criminal offense, shall be bailable
made a determination that the evidence of guilt  Exceptions:
is not strong against Enrile can he demand bail o He is charged with a capital offense or with an
as a matter of right offense punishable with reclusion perpetua
o On reclusion temporal o Evidence of his guilt is strong
 No merit  From the moment he is placed under arrest or is
 The circumstance will only be detained  he has right to bail
appreciated in the imposition of the  Criminal cases within MTC: bailable
proper penalty after trial should the o Reason: no jurisdiction to try capital offenses
accused be found guilty of the offense
 Granting of bail is discretionary:
o On flight risk
o Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
 Premature for the court to fix the
punishable by death, RP, or life imprisonment
amount of bail without an anterior
o RTC has imposed a penalty exceeding 6 years
showing that the evidence of guilt
provided none of the following circumstances is
against him is not strong
present:
- Enrile: Motion for reconsideration
 He is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
o Enrile can bail as a matter of right:
habitual delinquent or has committed
 The prosecution failed to show clearly
the crime aggravated by reiteracion
and conclusively that Enrile, if ever he
 Escapee
would be convicted, is punishable by
 Committed offense while under
reclusion perpetua
probation, parole, or conditional
 The prosecution failed to show
pardon
evidence of Enrile’s guilt is strong
 Probability of flight
 He is not a flight risk

PSoriano
 Undue risk that he may commit  Many years ago, when he had been charged with
another crime during the pendency of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he
the appeal was granted bail because he was not seen as a flight risk.
3. Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life  With his solid reputation in both his public and his
imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua is subject to private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s
judicial discretion judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted
 When bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing is bail.
mandatory before bail can be granted  Another compelling justification for admission to bail:
o Calls for the presentation of evidence and fragile state of his health
reasonable opportunity for the prosecution to o Suffering from:
refute fixing of bail  Hypertension
 Hearing may either be summary or otherwise  Atherosclerostic cardiovascular disease
o Summary hearing:  Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmia
 Brief and speedy method of receiving (irregular hear beat)
and considering the evidence of guilt as  Asthma-COPD Overlap syndrome and
is practicable and consistent with the postnatal drip syndrome
purpose of hearing which is merely to  Diabetes
determine the weight of evidence for  High cholesterol levels
purposes of bail  Etc
 Court does not sit to try the merits  There is no question that Enrile’s advanced age and ill
 Avoids unnecessary thoroughness in health required special medical attention. His
the examination and cross examination confinement at PNP General Hospital, was not even
 Guidelines in resolving bail applications (Cortes vs recommended by OIC and the internist doctor of the
Cartral) facility because of the limitations in the medical support
o In all cases, notify the prosecutor of the hearing at that hospital
of application for bail or require him to submit  Granting bail to Enrile on the forgoing reasons is not
his recommendation unprecedented. The Court has already held that illness of
o Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a the prisoner should be taken into account (Dela Rama v
hearing of the application for bail regardless of The People’s Court)
whether or not the prosecution refuses to  In the cases of Pio Duran and Benigno Aquino, they were
present evidence to show that the guilt of the released on bail on the ground that they were ill and
accused is strong for the purpose of enabling their continued confinement in New Bilibid Prison would
the court to exercise its sound discretion be injurious to their health.
o Decide whether the guilt is strong based on the  To wait for the trial to finish before a meaningful
summary of evidence of the prosecution consideration of the application for bail  defeats the
o If the guilt of the accused is not strong, objective of bail which is to entitle the accused to
discharge the accused upon the approval of provisional liberty pending the trial.
bailbond.
4. Enrile’s poor health justified his admission to bail
 In making this decision, the Court is guided by:
o Principal purpose of bail which to guarantee the
appearance of the accused at the trial
o Philippines’ national commitment under toe
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is
to uphold the fundamental human rights as well
as value the worth and dignity of every person
 The national commitment of the Philippines authorized
the grant of bail not only those charged in criminal
proceedings but also to extradites upon a clear and
convincing showing:
o Detainee will not be a flight risk or danger to the
community
o There exists special, humanitarian and
compelling circumstances
 Enrile’s social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered indicate that the risk of his
flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely

PSoriano

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi