Rule 114 Bail

Enrile vs Sandiganbayan GR No. 213847 Aug. 18, 2015

Facts: The Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile, 90 years of age, and several others with plunder in the
Sandiganbayan on the basis oftheirpurportedinvolvementinthediversionandmisuseofappropriationsunder
the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Upon voluntary surrender, Enrile filed his Motion for
Detention at the PNP General Hospital, and his Motion to Fix Bail. Enrile claims that before judgment of
conviction, an accused is entitled to bail as matter of right; that it is the duty and burden of the Prosecution to
show clearly and conclusively that Enrile comes under the exception and cannot beexcludedfromenjoyingthe
right to bail; that the Prosecution has failed to establish that Enrile, if convicted of plunder, is punishable by
reclusion perpetua considering the presence of two mitigating circumstances his age and his voluntary
surrender; that the Prosecution has not come forward with proof showingthathisguiltforthecrimeofplunder
is strong; and that he should not be considered a flight risktakingintoaccountthatheisalreadyovertheageof
90, his medical condition,andhissocialstanding.InitsComment,theOmbudsmancontendsthatEnrilesrightto
bail is discretionary as he is charged with a capital offense; that to be granted bail, it is mandatory that a bail
hearing be conducted to determine whether there is strong evidence of his guilt, or the lack of it; and that
entitlement to bail considers the imposable penalty, regardless of the attendant circumstances.

Issue: Is Enrile entitled to bail? If YES, on what ground(s)?

Held: YES, Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of right based on humanitarian grounds.
The imputation ofpreferentialtreatmentinunduefavorofthepetitionerisabsolutelybereftofbasis.
A reading of the decision of August 18,2015indicatesthattheCourtdidnotgranthisprovisionallibertybecause
he was a sitting Senator of the Republic. It did so because there were proper bases legal as well as factual
for the favorable consideration andtreatmentofhispleaforprovisionallibertyonbail.Byitsdecision,theCourt
has recognized his right to bail by emphasizing that such rightshouldbecurtailedonlyiftherisksofflightfrom
this jurisdiction were too high.
In our view, however, the records demonstrated that the risks of flight were low, or even nil. The Court
has taken intoconsiderationothercircumstances,suchashisadvancedageandpoorhealth,hispastandpresent
disposition of respect for the legal processes, the length of his public service, and his individual public and
private reputation. There was really no reasonable way for the Court to deny bail to him simply because his
situation of being 92 years of agewhenhewasfirstchargedfortheveryseriouscrimeincourtwasquiteunique
and very rare. To ignore his advanced age and unstable healthconditioninordertodenyhisrighttobailonthe
basis alone of the judicial discretion to deny bail would be probably unjust. To equate his situation with thatof
the other accused indicted for a similarly serious offense would be inherently wrong when other conditions
significantly differentiating his situation from that of the latters unquestionably existed.

Trillanes vs Pimentel 556 SCRA 471

Facts: On July 27, 2003, more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the
resignation of the President and key national officials. After a series of negotiations, military soldiers
surrendered that evening. In the aftermath of such event dubbed as the Oakwood Incident, petitioner Antonio F.
Trillanes IV was charged with coup dtat before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Four years later, Trillanes
remained in detention and won a seat in the Senate. Before starting his term, Trillanes filed with RTC an
Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests. Trillanes
requested to be allowed to attend senate sessions and fulfill his functions as senator. The RTC however denied his
motion. Thus, he filed Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside orders of the RTC.

Issue: Whether or not Trillanes is allowed to post bail?

BRIOSOS|1
Held: No. The Rules also state that 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 action. That the cited provisions apply equally to rape and coup dtat cases, both being
punishable by reclusion perpetua, is beyond cavil. Within the class of offenses covered by the stated range of
imposable penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to the political complexion of or moral turpitude involved
in the crime charged.
It is uncontroverted that petitioners application for bail and for release on recognizance was denied. The
determination that the evidence of guilt is strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an application for bail or
imported from a trial courts judgment of conviction, justifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment
of his right to provisional liberty. This accentuates the proviso that the denial of the right to bail in such cases is
regardless of the stage of the criminal action. Such justification for confinement with its underlying rationale of
public self-defense applies equally to detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted prisoners-appellants like
Jalosjos. As the Court observed in Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188 (2005), it is impractical to draw a line between
convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail security; and while pre-trial
detainees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon confinement, the fact of their detention makes their
rights more limited than those of the public.

BRIOSOS|2