The case of Juan Ponce Enrile vs Sandiganbayan (Third Division), and the People of the

Philippines G.R. No. 213847 was a case decided by the Supreme Court en banc. In this case, the
Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan
based on their purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the
Priority Development Assistance Fund. However, when Enrile filed his Omnibus Motion and
Supplemental Opposition, praying, among others, that he be allowed to post bail should probable
cause be found against him. It enunciated the issues whether to detain or release an accused before
and during trial is ultimately an incident of the judicial power to hear and determine his criminal
case and whether or not the resolutions denying the petitioner’s motion to fix bail and his motion
for reconsideration were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. And, albeit the outright denial of the Sandiganbayan of the petitioner’s motion to fix
bail, the highest court of the land decided otherwise. It ruled in favor of the petitioner concluding
that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the former’s motion which
connotes a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment tantamount to excess, or lack of
jurisdiction.

My stance, in this case, is that I do agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court as discussed
aforementioned based on the circumstances that fairly and equitably would justify the affirmation
of the petitioner’s motion. In the preceding class discussions, I have learned that bail is a matter of
right and a matter of discretion wherein, the former can be employed before and after conviction
by the first level courts, before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and the latter should not be exercised with laxity
but with great caution. As such, bail is an entitlement for the accused to provisional liberty pending
the trial and used to ensure the appearance of an accused during the trial. For one, the crime charged
against him is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment because of the
present mitigating circumstances--- his age and his voluntary surrender to the proper authorities,
which would extenuate his offense if ever he is found guilty of such. Furthermore, the petitioner
Juan Ponce Enrile was proven by clear and convincing evidence through testimonial evidence that
he is not a flight risk as his health was in a fragile state due to his advanced age and ill health
required special medical attention as attested by his attending physician. Such admission would
present another compelling justification for his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan
did not recognize.

In conclusion, the court further expressed its merit that in criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is
rooted in the guarantee of due process and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released
on bail, and further binds the court to wait until after trial to impose any punishment on the accused.
With that, I support the ruling and contention of the Supreme Court adjudging the petitioner’s
claim that his right to bail, which is expressly enunciated in the supreme law of the law, should be
afforded to him justifying the balancing of the scales of justice by protecting the interest of the
People through ensuring his personal appearance at the trial, and at the same time realizing for him
the guarantees of due process as well as to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.