Anda di halaman 1dari 4

ENRILE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No.

213847
Ankash Sohail Butt

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 by reclusion 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.
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


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.

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].

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.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai