LEGAL WRITING

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner,vs.SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

(Enrile v. Sandiganbayan)

Court Name: Supreme Court EN BANC

Date of the Decision: August 18, 2015

General Register Number (G.R.No.):  2138547

Ponente: Bersamin, J.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile with plunder in the Sandiganbayan for their purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Enrile respectively filed his Omnibus Motion and Supplemental Opposition, praying, among others, that he be allowed to post bail should probable cause be found against him.

The Sandiganbayan ordered his Arrest. Enrile voluntarily surrendered but was later on confined at the Philippine National Police General Hospital and classified Enrile as a geriatric patient who was found during the medical examinations conducted at the UP-PGH to be suffering from the medical conditions enumerated in the case.

Enrile filed his Motion to fix Bail arguing that he should be allowed to bail as he was not a flight risk, and his age and physical condition must further be seriously considered; but Sandiganbayan, in its resolution, denied Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail. Enrile filed his motion for certiorari.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (PH):

Enrile filed his Ominbus Motion and Supplemental Opposition praying that he be allowed to bail but it was denied by Sandiganbayan on the ground of its prematurity considering that Enrile had not yet voluntarily surrendered or been placed under the custody of the law. Accordingly, Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Enrile who thereafter voluntarily surrendered himself and subsequently filed his Motion to Fix the Bai. Enrile filed his motion for certiorari.

ISSUES:

A)    Substantive Issue:

1)     Whether Enrile’s entitled to bail because of his poor health.

B)    Procedural Issue:

2)     Whether Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion for denying Enrile’s motion to fix bail.

JUDGMENT:

The petition for certiorari is meritorious.

The Court GRANTS the petition for certiorari; ISSUES the writ of certiorari ANNULING and SETTING ASIDE the Resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) in Case No. SB-14 CRM-0238 on July 14, 2014 and August 8, 2014; ORDERS the PROVISIONAL RELEASE of petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile in Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238 upon posting of a cash bond of ₱1,000,000.00 in the Sandiganbayan; and DIRECTS the immediate release of petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile from custody unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause. No pronouncement on costs of suit.

HOLDING

A)    On Substantive Issue:

1)     Yes. Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail.

B)    On Procedural Issue

2) Yes. Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion for denying Enrile’s motion to fix bail as A hearing is mandatory before bail can be granted to an accused who is charged with a capital offense to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.

RULE OF LAW / LEGAL PRINCIPLE APPLIED

A)    On Substantive Issue:

Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail as Court is guided by the principal purpose of bail that is to protect the right of the accused to due process and to be presumed innocent as provided in the Constitution. It is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes but the purpose of which to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court.

The Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility in the international community arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.”

It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial.

B)    On Procedural Issue:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Art. III, Section 14 Par.2)

Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion. The right to bail is expressly afforded by Section 13, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution which makes it matter of right for those committed act punished not by death, reclusion perpetua, of life imprisonment or when punished by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment the evidence of guilt is not strong. Upon the other hand, admission to bail is a matter of Judicial discretion in offenses punished by death, or life imprisonment, or Reclusion Perpetua.  On the other hand, the granting of bail is discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or (2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, as follows:

(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.

In People vs. Dacudao, etc., et al.  a hearing is mandatory before bail can be granted to an accused who is charged with a capital offense to determine whether there is strong evidence of his guilt, or the lack of it.Cortes v. Catral outlined the guidelines to be complied by the trial judge in resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, to wit:

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 bail bond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.

Though the act committed by Enrile is punishable by reclusion perpetua, i.e., more than 6 years, none of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present; therefore, Enrile is entitled to Bail not as a matter of right but as a matter of Judicial discretion.  Further, to grant the accused with this provisional liberty under Judicial discretion, there must a hearing.

To mark time in order to wait for the trial to finish before a meaningful consideration of the application for bail can be had is to defeat the objective of bail, which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending the trial. There may be circumstances decisive of the issue of bail – whose existence is either admitted by the Prosecution, or is properly the subject of judicial notice – that the courts can already consider in resolving the application for bail without awaiting the trial to finish.49 The Court thus balances the scales of justice by protecting the interest of the People through ensuring his personal appearance at the trial, and at the same time realizing for him the guarantees of due process as well as to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.