ENRILE vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN
(767 SCRA 282, August 18, 2015)

CASE 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.

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.

RULING 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, reviews 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.

RULING 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 safeguards 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].

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE LEONEN

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.

“Bail for 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.

x x x. 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. x x x

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 expect 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.

x x x 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. x x x

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.