ENRILE v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
[MAJORITY OPINION]
18 Aug. 2015 Bersamin, J. G.R. No. 213847
TOPIC: What need not be proved; Judicial notice
SUMMARY: JPE et al. were charged with plunder. JPE voluntarily surrendered and was confined at the
PNP Gen. Hospital. He was denied bail by the Sandiganbayan. SC granted bail (fragile health).
RELEVANT DOCTRINE: There may be circumstances decisive of the issue of bail whose existence is
either admitted by the Prosecution, or is properly the subject of judicial notice that the courts
can already consider in resolving the application for bail without awaiting the trial to finish.
NATURE: Petition for certiorari (Rule 65) filed by JPE to assail and annul 2 Sandiganbayan resolutions
NOTE:

Ponente kept using bailable with respect to persons and not to offenses (e.g. Enrile is bailable as a matter of right.)

June 5, 2014 Ombudsman charged JPE and several others with plunder on the basis of their
purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the PDAF.
o Note: Plunder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under RA 7080.
June 10 and 16 JPE filed an Omnibus Motion and a Supplemental Opposition praying that he
be allowed to post bail should probable cause be found against him.
o July 3 Sandiganbayan denied the motion on the ground of prematurity (considering
that Enrile had not yet surrendered/ been placed in custodyno jurisdiction)
Sandiganbayan issued the warrant for JPEs arrest. On the same day, JPE voluntarily
surrendered to Dir. Magalong of the PNP-CIDG in Camp Crame, QC.
JPE was confined at the PNP General Hospital following his medical examination.
July 7 JPE filed a Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital and a Motion to Fix Bail.
o JPE argued that he should be allowed to post bail because:
a) The Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong;
b) The maximum imposable penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal in light
of 2 mitigating circumstances: (1) age, and (2) voluntary surrender; and
c) He was not a flight risk; his age and phys. condition must be seriously considered.
o Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Fix Bail (as well as the MR), ruling that:
It is premature to fix the amount of bail. JPE could only demand bail as a matter
of right after the prosecution shall have presented its evidence and the Court
shall have made a determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong. No such
determination had been made. JPE had not even filed an application for bail.
Mitigating circumstances are not taken into consideration in fixing bail; they are
only considered in the imposition of the proper penalty.

JPE ARGUES:
Enrile is bailable as a matter of right before judgment of the Sandiganbayan.
The prosecution failed to establish that Enrile is punishable by reclusion perpetua, in light of 2
mitigating circumstances, hence he is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
The prosecution failed to establish that evidence of his guilt (if ever) is strong.
He is not a flight risk (already over the age of 90 + medical condition + social standing).
OMBUDSMAN (FOR THE SANDIGANBAYAN) ARGUES:
The grant of bail is discretionary as JPE is charged with a capital offense.
The grant of bail must be preceded by a bail hearing to determine whether there is strong
evidence of JPEs guilt.
Entitlement to bail considers the imposable penalty, regardless of attendant circumstances.
W/N JPE is entitled to bail YES. The Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of
bail (to ensure appearance), and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile
health and advanced age of JPE.

VILLARAMA, BIANCA DANICA S.

PAGE 1 OF 3

EVIDENCE CASE # 21

Enriles poor health justifies his admission to bail.

Should mitigating circumstances be taken into account in fixing bail?

o [W]e do not determine now the question of whether or not Enriles averment on the
presence of the two mitigating circumstances could entitle him to bail despite the crime
alleged against him being punishable with reclusion perpetua, simply because the
determination, being primarily factual in context, is ideally to be made by the trial court.
In granting JPEs petition, the Court is guided by:
o Purpose of bail: to guarantee appearance (see discussion on bail, infra)
o Philippines responsibility in the international community under the UDHR, citing Govt
of Hong Kong v. Olalia: 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.
This has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in criminal
proceedings but also to extradites upon a clear and convincing showing:
1) That the detainee will not be a flight risk/ danger to the community
2) There exist special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances
JPE is not a flight risk and should be granted bail, as indicated by:
o His social and political standing
o His having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged
o He already evinced respect for the legal processes of this country in previous charges
(murder, multiple frustrated murder) and he was granted bail during the pendency of trial
o At stake: his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of
public service, and historys judgment of him
Another compelling justification not recognized by SB: currently fragile state of JPEs health
o Dr. Gonzales, Director of UP-PGH, classified JPE as a geriatric patient various
conditions, and that these, singly or collectively, pose significant risks to JPEs life:
1) Uncontrolled hypertension could lead to brain/heart complications incl. stroke
2) Arrythmia (irregular heartbeat) could lead to cardiovascular events esp. under stress
3) Coronary calcifications associated with coronary artery disease indicate a future risk
for heart attack under stressful conditions
4) Exacerbations of Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome, because they could be triggered
by circumstances such as excessive heat, humidity, dust, or allergen exposure
o JPEs confinement at the PNPGH was not recommended by the OIC and the internist
doctor because of the limitations in the medical support there.
Regardless of the crime charged, bail should be allowed independently of the merits of
the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his
health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life
would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.
o This is not unprecedented. Dela Rama v. Peoples Court: [U]nless allowance of bail is
forbidden by law in the particular case, the illness of the prisoner, independently of
the merits of the case, is a circumstance, and the humanity of the law makes it
a consideration which should, regardless of the charge and the stage of the
proceeding, influence the court to exercise its discretion to admit the prisoner to bail.
Granting provisional liberty to JPE will enable him to have his medical condition be properly
addressed in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation of
his defense but, more importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial.
To wait for the trial to finish before considering the application for bail is to defeat its purpose.
There may be circumstances decisive of the issue of bail whose existence is either
admitted by the Prosecution, or is properly the subject of judicial notice that the courts can
already consider in resolving the application for bail without awaiting the trial to finish.

VILLARAMA, BIANCA DANICA S.

PAGE 2 OF 3

EVIDENCE CASE # 21

The Court balances the scales of justice by protecting the Peoples interest (ensuring that JPE
appears at trial or whenever required), and by realizing for JPE the guarantees of due process
and presumption of innocence.

On Bail
RIGHT TO BAIL under Section 13, Article III of the Constitution:
x x x All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties,
or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
Reproduced in Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court:
Section 7. Capital offense or 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.

Purpose of bail: To guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial or whenever required
by the trial court, not to prevent him from committing additional crimes.
Gen. rule: Before being convicted of any criminal offense, any person shall be bailable unless
he is charged (1) with an offense punishable by death (capital offense), reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment, and (2) the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Bail is a matter of right:
o In cases before the MeTC/MTC/MTCC/MCTC
o Prior to conviction by the RTC for offenses NOT punishable by death/reclusion perpetua
o Prior to conviction for an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment when evidence of guilt is NOT strong
Bail is discretionary:
o Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment.
o If the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years, provided none of
the circumstances in Rule 114, Sec. 5, Par. 3 are present:
1) Recidivist/ quasi-recidivist/ habitual delinquent/ crime aggravated by reiteration;
2) Previously escaped from legal confinement/ evaded sentence/ violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification;
3) Committed the offense while under probation/ parole/ conditional pardon;
4) Circumstances of the case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
5) Undue risk that he may commit another crime during pendency of appeal.
Discretionary bail cannot be allowed unless there has been a hearing with notice to the
prosecution. The hearing may be summary or otherwise.
o Summary hearing such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which
is merely to determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail.
The trial judge is expected to comply with the guidelines in Cortes v. Catral:
1) In all cases (whether discretionary/ matter of right), notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
the bail application, or require him to submit his recommendation (Sec. 18, Rule 114)
2) If discretionary, conduct a hearing regardless of whether the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong (Secs. 7 and 8)
3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong.
4) If the guilt is not strong, discharge the accused upon approval of the bailbond (Sec. 19).
Otherwise, deny the petition.

VILLARAMA, BIANCA DANICA S.

PAGE 3 OF 3

EVIDENCE CASE # 21