Enrile vs Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
The office of the Ombudsmans charged Enrile and several other with plunder in the SB
on the basis of their purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under
the PDAF. Enrile respectively filed his Omnibus Motion and Supplemental Opposition that he be
allowed to post bail should probable cause be found against him.

SB denied Enrile’s 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. SB ordered the arrest of Enrile.

On the same day the warrant was issued, Enrile voluntarily surrendered to CIDG in
Camp Crame, Quezon City and was confined at the PNP General Hospital following his medical
examination.

Enrile filed his Motion for detention at the PNP General hospital and his motion to fix bail,
which were heard by the SB. Enrile argued that he should be allowed to post bail because: (a)
the Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (b) although
he was charged with plunder, the penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal , not
reclusion perpetua; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his age and physical condition must
further be seriously considered.

SB denied Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail and issued the resolution to deny Enrile’s motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUE: WON the accused is entitled to bail.

RULING:
Yes.
(Discussion of Bail)
The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever
so required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence
of the accused when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill
this purpose. Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s
interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the society’s interest in assuring
the accused’s presence at trial.

The general rule is, therefore, that any person, before being convicted of any criminal
offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong.

In resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged with a capital offense, or an
comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. Catral, 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
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;
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 bailbond.

 Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail

Enrile has averred in his Motion to Fix Bail the presence of two mitigating circumstances
that should be appreciated in his favor, namely: that he was already over 70 years at the time of
the alleged commission of the offense, and that he voluntarily surrendered.

This national commitment 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. (incase mo ask si atty about this)

SC viewed that Enrile’s social and political standing and his having immediately
surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk
of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal disposition
from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter
respect for the legal processes of this country.

SC also do not ignore that at an earlier time many years ago when he had been charged
with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar personal
disposition of respect for the legal processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his
trial because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his solid reputation in both his public and his
private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he
should be granted bail.

The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling

justification for his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize. Dr.
Gonzales attested that the following medical conditions, singly or collectively, could pose
significant risks to the life of Enrile.

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.