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.
 Senator Enrile
(Source: wikifilipinas.org)

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.
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 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
(Source: wikipedia.org)
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.

“Bailfor 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 cross-examination and
authentication of Dr. Gonzales' findings on petitioner's health in a hearing
whose main purpose is to 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.

Furthermore, in the above case, the SC disposed of it by remanding

the case back to the lower court for factual determination of
whether or not the accused was a flight risk.

BLOGGER'S COMMENTS
The majority opinion and the dissent both make for a very
interesting treatise on Criminal Procedure.These will likely be
quoted again and again in bail hearings and in classrooms.

The majority opinion is very strained, it had to rely on “motherhood

statements” regarding a person's right to liberty and right to bail.
The decision used no compelling legal reasoning apart from our
commitment to international laws.

Here comes Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, seeing himself as CJ

Claudio Teehankee reborn, comes to the rescue claiming that the
decision will:
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.

Factual Milieu is Important

We must note however the factual milieu. At the time Senators
Enrile, Revilla and Estrada were charged with plunder, the public
perception was that these Senators were the target of a campaign
to eliminate the Administration's political enemies.

The perception of some circles critical of the current administration

that these three senators, (the trio known colloquially as “Pogi”,
“Tanda” and “Sexy”) were hastily charged and unfairly
detained. The accusation that the administration was quick to
charge its enemies while defending its allies is a valid one. No
discussion of the grant of bail will overlook the highly politicized
nature of the 3 Senator's incarceration.

That is not to say that this trio and particularly Enrile are innocent.
Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision drew a slew of criticism and a
few defenders. Below are just a few links to articles criticizing or
defending the decision.

Treachery at the Philippine Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Ruling on Enrile Shames the Philippines

It’s time to make a stand on Supreme Court’s Enrile ruling, says

member of Cyber Plaza Miranda

Would you grant bail if it was not Enrile?

Nothing higher than liberty

In defense of Enrile bail

Ongoing discussion on pinoyexchange.com

Keep in mind that some of these articles were written before the
decision actually came out.

Am I comfortable with the decision?

Justice Bersamin - Author of the main decision

(Source: wikipedia.org)

Yes. The decision re-emphasizes the right of people to bail from an

ideological standpoint – politically well connected or otherwise – it
serves to remind courts and prosecutors to establish probability of
guilt for heinous crimes early on. For the innocent languishing in
detention centers, this decision is a Godsend and can potentially
speed up criminal justice.

Courts and prosecutors will have to take steps to adapt to this new
environment. Needless to say, I argue that the requisites of 1.
Flight risk and, 2. Strong evidence of guilt are fairly simple and
reliable guidelines for the lower courts to follow. The dissent's
warning of courts getting swamped with requests of accused to be
released on bail and lack of guidance to lower courts is unwarranted
fear-mongering.

I am uncomfortable with the dissenting opinion. While I think its

arguments as to the finer points of procedure is warranted, it
nevertheless casts the Supreme Court in a bad light and can serve
to weaken it as an institution.
 G.R. No. 213847, Aug. 18, 2015

Juan Ponce Enrile

vs.
Sandiganbayan ( 3 division ) and People of the Philippines
rd

Facts:
Year 2014, Sen. Enrile was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan
for their alleged involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriation
under the PDAF. When his warrant was issued, Sen. Enrile voluntarily
surrendered to the CIDG and was later confined and detained at the PNP
General Hospital, he then filed a motion to fix bail where he argued that:

1. He should be allowed to post bail as a matter of right;

2. Although charged with plunder his penalty would only be reclusion temporal
considering that there are two mitigating circumstances, his voluntary surrender
and that he is already at the age of 90;
3. That he is not a flight risk and his medical condition must be seriously considered.
The Sandiganbayan however, denied his motion on the grounds that:

1. He is charged with a capital offense;

2. That it is premature for the Court to fix the amount of his bail because the
prosecution have not yet presented its evidences.
Sen. Enrile then filed a certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for denying his motion to fix bail?

Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the
objective of bail and unwarrantedly disregarded Sen. Enrile’s fragile health
and advanced age. Bail is a matter right and is safeguarded by the
constitution, its purpose is to ensure the personal appearance of the accused
during trial or whenever the court requires and at the same time recognizing
the guarantee of due process which is the presumption of his innocence until
proven guilty. The Supreme Court further explained that Bail for the
provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged should be
allowed independently of the merits charged, provided his continued
incarceration is injurious to his health and endanger his life. Hence, the
Sandiganbayan failed to observe that if Sen. Enrile be granted the right to bail
it will enable him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and
attended, which will then enable him to attend trial therefore achieving the true
purpose of bail.