JUAN PONCE ENRILE v SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 213847 Petitioner again asked the Sandiganbayan in a Motion to Fix Bail
August 18, 2015
By: John Angelo G. Basa
Topic: Right to Bail
Petitioner: JUAN PONCE ENRILE
Respondents: SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Ponente: BERSAMIN, J
DOCTRINE: 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.
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.
ISSUE:
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.
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 perpetua subject 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 from Government 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].