Case Digest Enrile Vs Sandiganbayan (MR) - G.R. No. 213847

Enrile vs Sandiganbaya
G.R. No. 213847, July 12, 2016 [MR]
Recit-Ready Case Summary: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Special
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, have filed their Motion for Reconsideration to assail the
decision promulgated on August 18, 2015 granting Enrile (charged with plunder a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua) bail despite the constitutionally mandated rule under Article III Section 13:
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
SC said Enrile can bail.
General Rule of Law/Doctrine:

One of the conditions of bail is for the accused to "appear before the proper court whenever required by
the court or these Rules." The practice of bail fixing supports this purpose.
Admission to bail always involves the risk that the accused will take flight. This is the reason precisely
why the probability or the improbability of flight is an important factor to be taken into consideration in
granting or denying bail, even in capital cases. The exception to the fundamental right to bail should be
applied in direct ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion of prosecution. Apparently, an accused's
official and social standing and his other personal circumstances arc considered and appreciated as
tending to render his flight improbable.
FACTS:
This is a motion for reconsideration from the case dated August 18, 2015. Under the original case the
Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile, 90 years of age, 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). 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 be excluded from enjoying the 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 showing that his guilt for the crime of plunder is strong; and that he should not be
considered a flight risk taking into account that he is already over the age of 90, his medical condition,
and his social standing. In its Comment, the Ombudsman contends that Enrile’s right to 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:
Whether or not the Decision openly ignore and abandoned the constitutionally mandated procedure for
determining whether a person accused of a crime punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or life
imprisonment such as plunder can be granted bail.
HELD:
No. (according the Supreme Court).
Section 2, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court expressly states that one of the conditions of bail is for the
accused to "appear before the proper court whenever required by the court or these Rules." The
practice of bail fixing supports this purpose. Thus, in Villasenor v. Abano, the Court has pronounced that
"the principal factor considered (in bail fixing), to the determination of which most factors are directed,
is the probability of the appearance of the accused, or of his flight to avoid punishment." The Court has
given due regard to the primary but limited purpose of granting bail, which was to ensure that the
petitioner would appear during his trial and would continue to submit to the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan to answer the charges levelled against him.
Bail exists to ensure society's interest in having the accused answer to a criminal prosecution without
unduly restricting his or her liberty and without ignoring the accused's right to be presumed innocent. It
does not perform the function of preventing or licensing the commission of a crime. The notion that bail
is required to punish a person accused of crime is, therefore, fundamentally misplaced. Indeed, the
practice of admission to bail is not a device for keeping persons in jail upon mere accusation until it is
found convenient to give them a trial. The spirit of the procedure is rather to enable them to stay out of
jail until a trial with all the safeguards has found and adjudged them guilty. Unless permitted this
conditional privilege, the individuals wrongly accused could be punished by the period or imprisonment
they undergo while awaiting trial, and even handicap them in consulting counsel, searching for evidence
and witnesses, and preparing a defense. Hence, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate
both the accused's interest in pretrial liberty and society's interest in assuring his presence at trial.
The petitioner has proven with more than sufficient evidence that he would not be a flight risk. For one,
his advanced age and fragile state of health have minimized the likelihood that he would make himself
scarce and escape from the jurisdiction of our courts. The testimony of Dr. Jose C. Gonzales, Director of
the Philippine General Hospital, showed that the petitioner was a geriatric patient suffering from various
medical conditions, which, singly or collectively, could pose significant risks to his life. The medical
findings and opinions have" been uncontested by the Prosecution even in their present Motion for
Reconsideration.

Case Digest Enrile Vs Sandiganbayan (MR) - G.R. No. 213847

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Enrile Vs Sandiganbayan (MR) - G.R. No. 213847

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Enrile Vs Sandiganbayan (MR) - G.R. No. 213847

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enrile vs Sandiganbaya

G.R. No. 213847, July 12, 2016 [MR]

SC said Enrile can bail.

General Rule of Law/Doctrine:

You might also like