Constitutional Law Review (Sunga)
3. Enrile v Sandiganbayan (JNL)
G. R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015
TOPIC: Right to Bail
FACTS:
 The Ombudsman charged Enrile and several
others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on
the basis of their purported involvement in
the diversion and misuse of appropriations
under the PDAF.
 Enrile filed this motion to be allowed to post
bail should probable cause be found against
him.
 The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motion
on the ground that it is immature,
considering that enrile had not yet
voluntarily surrendered or been placed
under the custody of the law. It also ordered
the arrest of Enrile.
 Enrile voluntary surrendered to the CIDG on
the day his warrant of arrest was issued.
o He thereafter filed a Motion to Fix Bail
and Motion for Detention at the PNP
Gen Hospital.
o He argued that the prosecution has
not yet established that the evidence
of his guilt is strong
 that the penalty for plunder
would only be reclusion
temporal, not perpeta
 that he is not a flight risk and
his age and physical condition
should be considered.
 The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on the
ground that it is only after the prosecution
presents its case will the Court make the
determination if the guilt of Enrile is strong.
o Thus, even if his age and physical
condition is to be considered, the
motion is still premature.
 The subsequent MR of Enrile was denied.
 The Ombudsman, in its comment, contends
that Enrile’s right to bail is discretionary and
a bail hearing is mandatory to determine
whether there is strong evidence of his guilt.
ISSUE: Whether the bail should be granted
HELD: YES
BAIL PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
TO DUE PROCESS AND PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
 The purpose of bail is to guarantee the
appearance of the accused at the trial, or
whenever so required by the trial court.
 Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to
accommodate both the accused’s interest in
his provisional liberty before or during the
trial, and the society’s interest in assuring the
accused’s presence at trial
BAIL MAY BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF
RIGHT OR OF DISCRETION
 The general rule is, that any person,
before being convicted of any criminal
offense, shall be bailable, unless he is
charged with a capital offense, or with an
offense punishable with reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
o Once it has been established that the
evidence of guilt is strong, no right to
bail shall be recognized.
 On the other hand, the granting of bail is
discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the
RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
or (2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding six years,
provided none of the circumstances
enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section
5, Rule 114 is present.
ADMISSION TO BAIL IN OFFENSES PUNISHED
BY DEATH, OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT, OR
RECLUSION PERPETUA IS SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL DISCRETION
 For purposes of admission to bail, the
determination of whether or not evidence of
guilt is lies within the discretion of the trial
court, it it will grant provisional liberty.

o It is axiomatic, therefore, that bail
cannot be allowed when its grant is
a matter of discretion on the part of
the trial court unless there has
been a hearing with notice to the
Prosecution.
 In resolving bail applications of the
accused who is charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
the trial judge is expected to comply with
the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. Catral,
to wit:
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
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;
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
ENRILE’S POOR HEALTH JUSTIFIES
ADMISSION TO BAIL
 We first note that Enrile has averred in his
Motion to Fix Bail the presence of two
mitigating circumstances that should be
appreciated in his favor, namely: that he was
already over 70 years at the time of the
alleged commission of the offense, and that
he voluntarily surrendered
 In our view, his social and political standing
and his having immediately surrendered to
the authorities upon his being charged in
court indicate that the risk of his flight or
Constitutional Law Review (Sunga)
escape from this jurisdiction is highly
unlikely.
o With his solid reputation in both his
public and his private lives, his long
years of public service, and history’s
judgment of him being at stake, he
should be granted bail.
 The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health
presents another compelling justification for
his admission to bail, but which the
Sandiganbayan did not recognize.
 Considering the report of the Medical
Director of the Quezon Institute to the effect
that the petitioner "is actually suffering from
minimal, early, unstable type of pulmonary
tuberculosis, and chronic, granular
pharyngitis," and that in said institute they
"have seen similar cases, later progressing
into advance stages when the treatment and
medicine are no longer of any avail", the
People’s Court acted with grave abuse of
discretion in refusing to re lease the
petitioner on bail
 It is relevant to observe that granting
provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable
him to have his medical condition be
properly addressed and better attended to by
competent physicians 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.
 Accordingly, we conclude that the
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 Enrile. As such, the
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion To
Fix Bail.