Wednesday, August 26, 2015

ENRILE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN: DIGEST AND COMMENTS

G.R. No. 213847; August 18, 2015
Ponente: Bersamin
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.
Senator Enrile
(Source: wikifilipinas.org)
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.
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].
-o0oLEONEN DISSENT

Justice Leonen
(Source: wikipedia.org)
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.

xxx
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...
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
expects 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.
xxx
The better part of prudence is that we follow strictly our wellentrenched, 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.
asgasgf
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.
BLOGGER'S COMMENTS
The majority opinion and the dissent both make for a very
interesting treatise on Criminal Procedure. These will likely be
quoted again and again in bail hearings and in classrooms.
The majority opinion is very strained, it had to rely on
motherhood statements regarding a person's right to liberty
and right to bail. The decision used no compelling legal reasoning
apart from our commitment to international laws.
Here comes Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, seeing himself as CJ
Claudio Teehankee reborn, comes to the rescue claiming that the
decision will:
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.

Factual Milieu is Important

We must note however the factual milieu. At the time Senators
Enrile, Revilla and Estrada were charged with plunder, the public
perception was that these Senators were the target of a campaign
to eliminate the Administration's political enemies.
The perception of some circles critical of the current
administration that these three senators, (the trio known
colloquially as Pogi, Tanda and Sexy) were hastily charged
and unfairly detained. The accusation that the administration was
quick to charge its enemies while defending its allies is a valid
one. No discussion of the grant of bail will overlook the highly
politicized nature of the 3 Senator's incarceration.
That is not to say that this trio and particularly Enrile are
innocent. Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision drew a slew of
criticism and a few defenders. Below are just a few links to
articles criticizing or defending the decision.
Treachery at the Philippine Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Ruling on Enrile Shames the Philippines
Its time to make a stand on Supreme Courts Enrile ruling, says
member of Cyber Plaza Miranda
Would you grant bail if it was not Enrile?
Nothing higher than liberty
In defense of Enrile bail
Ongoing discussion on pinoyexchange.com
Keep in mind that some of these articles were written before the
decision actually came out.
Am I comfortable with the decision?

Justice Bersamin - Author of the main decision

(Source: wikipedia.org)
Yes. The decision re-emphasizes the right of people to bail from
an ideological standpoint politically well connected or otherwise
it serves to remind courts and prosecutors to establish
probability of guilt for heinous crimes early on. For the innocent
languishing in detention centers, this decision is a Godsend and
can potentially speed up criminal justice.
Courts and prosecutors will have to take steps to adapt to this
new environment. Needless to say, I argue that the requisites of
1. Flight risk and, 2. Strong evidence of guilt are fairly simple and
reliable guidelines for the lower courts to follow. The dissent's
warning of courts getting swamped with requests of accused to
be released on bail and lack of guidance to lower courts is
unwarranted fear-mongering.
I am uncomfortable with the dissenting opinion. While I think its
arguments as to the finer points of procedure is warranted, it
nevertheless casts the Supreme Court in a bad light and can
serve to weaken it as an institution