G.R. No.

213847 August 18, 2015

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS: Senator Juan Ponce Enrile filed a petition for certiorari to assail and annul
the resolutions dated July 14, 2014 and August 8, 2014 issued by the
Sandiganbayan, where he has been charged with plunder along with several others.
Enrile insists that the resolutions, which respectively denied his Motion To Fix Bail
and his Motion For Reconsideration, were issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The objective of the petition for certiorari is to annul the decision of the
Sandiganbayan denying his motion to fix bail and motion for reconsideration on the
following grounds: 1.) the prosecution failed to show conclusively that Enrile, if ever
convicted, is punishable by reclusion perpetua; 2.) the prosecution failed to show
that the evidence of Enriles guilt is strong; 3.) Enrile is not a flight risk.

(Antecedent) On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and
several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported
involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). On June 10, 2014 and June 16, 2014, 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 motions were heard by the Sandiganbayan after the Prosecution filed its
Consolidated Opposition.

On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued its resolution denying Enriles motion,
particularly on the matter of bail, on the ground of its prematurity considering that
Enrile had not yet then voluntarily surrendered or been placed under the custody of
the law. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Enrile.

On the same day that the warrant for his arrest was issued, Enrile voluntarily
surrendered to Director Benjamin Magalong of the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and was later on confined at
the Philippine National Police (PNP) General Hospital following his medical
examination.

ISSUE: Whether Senator Juan Ponce Enrile can bail?

HELD: 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.

In addition, It is the Philippines responsibility in the international community under

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .of protecting and promoting the right
of every person to liberty and due processunder the 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. He is
also not a flight risk because of his social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged in court. Lastly, the
fragile state of Enriles health is a compelling justification for his admission to bail.

Bail as a matter of discretion

Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeated 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.