ENRILE V SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
On June 5, 2014, Sen. Enrile was charged with plunder before the
Sandiganbayan for their alleged involvement in the diversion and misuse of
appropriation under the PDAF. When his warrant was issued, Sen. Enrile voluntarily
surrendered to the CIDG and was later confined and detained at the PNP General
Hospital, he then filed a motion to fix bail where he argued that:
(1) He should be allowed to post bail as a matter of right;
(2) Although charged with plunder his penalty would only be reclusion temporal
considering that there are two mitigating circumstances, his voluntary
surrender and that he is already at the age of 90;
(3) That he is not a flight risk and his medical condition must be seriously
considered.

The Sandiganbayan however, denied his motion on the grounds that:

(1) He is charged with a capital offense;
(2) That it is premature for the Court to fix the amount of his bail because the
prosecution have not yet presented its evidences.

Sen. Enrile then filed a certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for denying his motion to fix bail?

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the
objective of bail and unwarrantedly disregarded Sen. Enriles fragile health and
advanced age. Bail is a matter right and is safeguarded by the constitution, its
purpose is to ensure the personal appearance of the accused during trial or
whenever the court requires and at the same time recognizing the guarantee of due
process which is the presumption of his innocence until proven guilty. The Supreme
Court further explained that Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused,
regardless of the crime charged should be allowed independently of the merits
charged, provided his continued incarceration is injurious to his health and
endanger his life. Hence, the Sandiganbayan failed to observe that if Sen. Enrile be
granted the right to bail it will enable him to have his medical condition be properly
addressed and attended, which will then enable him to attend trial therefore
achieving the true purpose of bail.

THE COURT GRANTS THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI; ISSUES THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE THE RESOLUTIONS ISSUED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN

LEONEN, J., dissenting:

This Petition for Certiorari should not be granted. The action of the
Sandiganbayan in denying the Motion to Fix Bail was proper. Bail is not a matter of
right in cases where the crime charged is plunder and the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua. Neither was there grave abuse of discretion by the
Sandiganbayan when it failed to release accused on bail for medical or
humanitarian reasons. His release for medical and humanitarian reasons was not
the basis for his prayer in his Motion to Fix Bail 1 filed before the Sandiganbayan.
Neither did he base his prayer for the grant of bail in this Petition on his medical
condition. The grant of bail, therefore, by the majority is a special accommodation
for petitioner. The allegation that petitioner suffers from medical conditions that
require very special treatment is a question of fact. Furthermore, the majority's
opinion other than the invocation of a general human rights principle does not
provide clear legal basis for the grant of bail on humanitarian grounds. Bail for
humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court nor
found in any statute or provision of the Constitution. This case leaves this court
open to a justifiable criticism of granting a privilege ad hoc: only for one person
petitioner in this case. 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.

CORTES V CATRAL

FACTS:
A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging Judge Segundo
B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gross Ignorance of the Law committed
when
(1) he granted bail in murder cases without hearing
(2) he reduced the bailbond granted by the provincial prosecutor from
P180,000 to P30,000 without hearing
(3) he granted a bailbond of P14,800 in a homicide case; and
(4) he acquitted Jimmy Siriban, the rumors spreading that the wife of Judge
Segundo Catral went to Jimmy Siribans house to get the envelop.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the

complaint saying that there is nothing in the allegations of the complainant that
would warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against the judge.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Catral is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for having
granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases

HELD:
As held in Basco vs. Rapatalo, the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing
even in cases where the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the
application of bail to the sound discretion of the court. A hearing is likewise required
if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
grant and fix bail. The importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few
cases wherein the court ruled that, even if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory
for the court to conduct a hearing or ask searching questions from which it may
infer the strength of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.
The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as the determination of whether or not
the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial discretion,
it may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the
hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since
evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the
court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the
evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross
examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal.

The fact that Criminal Case 07-874 was subsequently dismissed by Judge
Alameda does not completely exculpate Judge Catral. The judge is not bound by the
recommendation of the prosecutor and the affidavits and sworn statements of the
witnesses are mere hearsay statements which could hardly be the basis for
determining whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. The
procedural lapse of the judge is aggravated by the fact that even though the
accused in Criminal Case 07-874 (People v. Ahmed Duerme), have yet to be
arrested, respondent already fixed bail in the sum of P200,000.00.

The right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the
law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say
incongruous, to file a petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet to be
curtailed. In sum, Judge Segundo B. Catral is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for
having granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases 07-874 and 08-866 without
having conducted the requisite hearing.

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 (Sec 18, Rule 114 of 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; (Sec 7 & 8, supra)
(3)Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of
evidence of the prosecution; and
(4)If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
approval of the bailbond. (Sec 19, supra). Otherwise petition should be denied.

JUDGE CATRAL WAS ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF P20,000 WITH A WARNING THAT A
REPITITION OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR ACTS IN THE FUTURE WILL BE DEALT WITH
MORE SEVERELY.