IN COMPLETION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS SANDIGANBAYAN

GR # 21847; August 18, 2015
Ponente: Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
FACTS
On June 5,2014, petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with
plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his puported 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 Enriles arrest
was issued, leading to petitioners voluntary surrender. Petitioner again
asked the Sandiganbayan in a motion to fix bail which was heard by
the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner argued that:
1. Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt
was strong;
2. Because of his advanced age and voluntary surrender, the penalty
would be reclusion temporal, thus allowing for bail and;
3. 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
HELD
Yes.
Bail as 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 constituion and
repeated in Ssec 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 by

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 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 nonbailable 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 deliquent, 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 condition 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 propio or in motion of any party, review
the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse
party in either case.
Thus, the admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life

imprisonment or reclusion perpetua subject to judicial discretion. In

concerned citizen vs Elma, the court held: Such 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. 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 natter of right or discretion, notify the
prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to
submit his recommendation (Sec 18, Rule 114 of the Rules od Court as
amended):
2. Where bail is a matter of right or 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.
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the
summary evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon
the approval of the

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE LEONEN

Justice Leonen criticized the decision for having a 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 petitioners 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 bot based on
their legal provisins, but one that is unpredictable, partial and solely
grounded on the presence of absence of human compassion.

ANALYSIS
In the dissenting opinion of Jusctice Leonen, he criticized the decision
for having a very weak legal basis-the grant of bail over mere
humanitarian grounds. Leonen argues that petitioners release for
medical or humanitarian reasons was not the basis of his prayer in his
motion to fix bail before the Sandiganbayan, nor were these grounds
raised in the petition in the Supreme Court.
However, on Justice Bersamins point of view as the author of the main
decision, he was asked if he was comfortable with the decision and he
said; YES. The decision re-emphasizes the right of people to bail from
an idealogical standppoint- 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 detion
centers, the decision is God send and can potentially speed up criminal
justice.

Courts and prosecutors will have to take steps to adapt to this new
environment. Needless to say, argue that the requisites of 1. Flight risk
nd 2. Strong evidence of guilt are fairly simple and reliable guidelines
for the lower courts to follow. The dissents warning of courts getting
swamped with requests of accused to be released on bail and lack of
guidance of guidance to lower courts is unwarranted fear-mongering.
He further added saying that, 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.
Even if majority of the opinions offers no guidance to an apprentice of
law such as a student like me, i strongly agree with decision of Justice
Bersamin in granting bail to Juan Ponce Enrile for humanitarian
considerations because of his advance age on the following grounds:
A. Petitioners poor health justifies his admission to bail. The Supreme
court took note of the Philippines responsibility to the international
community arising from its commitment to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. We therefor have the responsibilty 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.