Enrile vs.
Sandiganbayan [2015] SC granted bail not b/c evid is not strong - EXC when he is charged w/ a capital offense, or w/ an offense
Facts:
PetCert filed by Senator Enrile to assailing the resolutions issued by the
Sandiganbayan, w/c denied his Motion To Fix Bail and his MR, alleging GAD
2014 the Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and several others w/
plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported involvement in the
diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development
Assistance Fund [PDAF]
Enrile filed a motion to fix bail, and argued that
- the Prosecution had not yet established that the evid of his guilt was
strong;
- although he was charged w/ plunder, the penalty as to him would only
be reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua [2 mitigating
circumstances; over 70 y/o and voluntary surrender]; and
- he was not a flight risk, and his age and physical condition must further
be seriously considered
Sandiganbayan denied the motion and MR. Hence, this pet
Issue: w/n Enrile should be granted bail YES
Held:
In all crim 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.
The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or
whenever so required by the TC
The right to bail is expressly afforded by Sec. 13, Art. III [Bill of Rights] of the
Consti
- All persons, except those charged w/ offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evid of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable
xxx. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required
GR any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable
[matter of right]
punishable w/ reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evid of
his guilt is strong [discretionary]
o bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter of discretion
on the part of the TC unless there has been a hearing w/ notice
to the Prosecution [to determine w/n evid of guilt is strong]
The Court is further mindful of the Phil.s responsibility in the intl community
arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights to
- uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and
dignity of every person
- This commitment is enshrined in Sec. II, Art. II of our Consti "The State
values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights."
- The Phil. authorities are under obligation to make available to every
person under detention such remedies w/c safeguard their fundamental
right to liberty
o These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail
Enriles 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 escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely
- His personal disposition has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal
processes of this country
- Also, many years ago when he had been charged w/ rebellion w/ murder
and multiple frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar personal
disposition of respect for the legal processes, and was granted bail
during the pendency of his trial b/c he was not seen as a flight risk
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