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.
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].
LEONEN DISSENT
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 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.
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)
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.