4 Enrile Vs Sandiganbayan

10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy

283
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 283

Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
G.R. No. 213847. August 18, 2015.*
.
with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, petitioner, vs.
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), and PEOPLE OF
guilt is strong. Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest,
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
or is detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Presumption of the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights,
Innocence; In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.—In all offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Once it
innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumption of has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right
innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due process, and is to bail shall be recognized.
safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on Same; Same; Same; All criminal cases within the competence
bail, and further binds the court to wait until after trial to of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Municipal Trial Court
impose any punishment on the accused. (MTC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), or Municipal
Same; Same; Bail; The purpose of bail is to guarantee the Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) are bailable as matter of right because
appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so these courts have no jurisdiction to try capital offenses, or offenses
required by the trial court.—It is worthy to note that bail is punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.—All
not granted to prevent the accused from committing criminal cases within the competence of the Metropolitan Trial
additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or
appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so Municipal Circuit Trial Court are bailable as matter of right
required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be because these courts have no jurisdiction to try capital offenses, or
high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably Likewise, bail is a matter of right prior to conviction by the
calculated to fulfill this purpose. Thus, bail acts as a Regional Trial Court (RTC) for any offense not punishable by
reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or even prior to
interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, conviction for an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong.
at trial.
Same; Same; Same; The granting of bail is discretionary: (1)
Same; Same; Same; The general rule is that any person,
upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of an offense
before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with
or (2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding
an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
six (6) years, provided none of the circumstances enumerated
imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong.—A
under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present.—The
capital offense in the context of the rule refers to an offense
granting of bail is discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the RTC of
that, under the law existing at the time of its commission
an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
and the application for admission to bail, may be punished
imprisonment; or (2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of
with death. The general rule is, therefore, that any person,
imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of the
before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be
circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule
bailable, unless he is charged
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
* EN BANC.
previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
vio-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/70

10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy

284 285
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 285
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
lated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or bailbond. (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.
conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate Same; Same; Same; This national commitment to uphold the
the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity
undue risk that he may commit another crime during the of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to those
pendency of the appeal. charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a
Same; Same; Same; For purposes of admission to bail, the clear and convincing showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a
determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist
criminal cases involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.—This
with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the national commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as
discretion of the trial court.—For purposes of admission to bail, well as value the worth and dignity of every person has
the determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in criminal
criminal cases involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and convincing
with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger
discretion of the trial court. But, as the Court has held in to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian
Concerned Citizens v. Elma, 241 SCRA 84 (1995), “such discretion and compelling circumstances. In our view, his social and political
may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the standing and his having immediately surrendered to the
degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk
should be granted provisional liberty.” It is axiomatic, therefore, of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His
that bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter of personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder,
discretion on the part of the trial court unless there has been a formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the
hearing with notice to the Prosecution. legal processes of this country. We also do not ignore that at an
Same; Same; Same; In resolving bail applications of the earlier time many years ago when he had been charged with
accused who is charged with a capital offense, or an offense rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he already
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the legal
judge is expected to comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial
v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997).—In resolving bail applications of because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his solid reputation
the accused who is charged with a capital offense, or an offense in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should
judge is expected to comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes be granted bail. The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health
v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997), to wit: 1. In all cases, whether bail presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail,
is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize.
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his Same; Same; Same; Bail for the provisional liberty of the
recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed
amended); 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued
hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to
prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of endanger his life.—Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused,
the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently
exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra) 3. Decide of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is
whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life.
of evidence of the prosecution; 4. If the guilt of the accused is not Indeed, denying him bail despite


287
286
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 287

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
Same; Same; Same; View that the mandatory bail hearing is
imperiling his health and life would not serve the true only to determine the amount of bail when it is a matter of right.
objective of preventive incarceration during the trial. On the other hand, mandatory bail hearings are held when an
accused is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, not only to fix the amount of bail but
LEONEN, J., Dissenting Opinion: fundamentally to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
—The mandatory bail hearing is only to determine the amount of
bail when it is a matter of right. On the other hand, mandatory
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Bail; View that bail
bail hearings are held when an accused is charged with a crime
is not a matter of right in cases where the crime charged is plunder
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not only to
and the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.—This Petition
fix the amount of bail but fundamentally to determine whether
for Certiorari should not be granted. The action of the
the evidence of guilt is strong.
Sandiganbayan in denying the Motion to Fix Bail was proper.
Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the crime charged is Same; Same; Same; View that petitioner did not ask that bail
plunder and the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. Neither be granted because of his medical condition or for humanitarian
was there grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan when reasons; Yet, it now becomes the very basis for petitioner’s grant of
it failed to release accused on bail for medical or humanitarian bail.—The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of
reasons. His release for medical and humanitarian reasons was discretion when it failed to release petitioner on bail for medical
not the basis for his prayer in his Motion to Fix Bail filed before or humanitarian reasons. Petitioner did not ask that bail be
the Sandiganbayan. Neither did he base his prayer for the grant granted because of his medical condition or for humanitarian
of bail in this Petition on his medical condition. reasons. Neither petitioner nor the prosecution as respondent
developed their arguments on this point at the Sandiganbayan or
Same; Same; Same; View that the grant of bail, therefore, by
in this court to establish the legal and factual basis for this
the majority is a special accommodation for petitioner. It is based
special kind of bail in this case. Yet, it now becomes the very basis
on a ground never raised before the Sandiganbayan or in the
for petitioner’s grant of bail.
pleadings filed before the Supreme Court (SC).—The grant of bail,
therefore, by the majority is a special accommodation for Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Judgments; Dissenting
petitioner. It is based on a ground never raised before the Opinions; The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (SC) allows
Sandiganbayan or in the pleadings filed before this court. The one (1) week for the submission of a dissenting opinion.—The
Sandiganbayan should not be faulted for not shedding their Internal Rules of the Supreme Court allows one week for the
neutrality and impartiality. It is not the duty of an impartial submission of a dissenting opinion. Thus, in Rule 13, Section 7 of
court to find what it deems a better argument for the accused at A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC: SEC. 7. Dissenting, separate or concurring
the expense of the prosecution and the people they represent. opinion.—A Member who disagrees with the majority opinion, its
conclusions, and the disposition of the case may submit to the
Same; Same; Same; View that bail for humanitarian
Chief Justice or Division Chairperson a dissenting opinion,
considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court
setting forth the reason or reasons for such dissent. A Member
nor found in any statute or provision of the Constitution.—The
who agrees with the result of the case, but based on different
majority’s opinion — other than the invocation of a general
reason or reasons may submit a separate opinion; a concurrence
human rights principle — does not provide clear legal basis for
“in the result” should state the reason for the qualified
the grant of bail on humanitarian grounds. Bail for humanitarian
concurrence. A Member who agrees with the main opinion, but
considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court
opts to express other reasons for concurrence may submit a
nor found in any statute or provision of the Constitution. This
concurring opinion. The dissenting, separate, or concurring
case leaves this court open to a justifiable criticism of granting a
opinion must be submitted within one week from the date the
privilege ad hoc: only for one person — petitioner in this case.
writer of the majority opinion presents the decision for the
signature of the Members. (Em-


288 289
phasis supplied) But this member endeavored to complete his portunity to cross-examine the evidence, and without
draft incorporating the ideas and suggestions of other dissenting consideration of any rebutting evidence that may have been
justices within two days from the circulation of the majority presented should a hearing be held, casts serious doubt on our
opinion. neutrality and objectivity.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Bail; View that Same; Same; Same; View that the majority has not set specific
nowhere in the rules of procedure do we allow the grant of bail bases for finding that the medical condition of petitioner entitles
based on judicial notice of a doctor’s certification.—In essence, the him to treatment different from all those who are now under
majority now insists on granting bail merely on the basis of the detention and undergoing trial for plunder.—It is unclear whether
certification in a Manifestation and Compliance dated August 14, this privilege would apply to all those who have similar conditions
2014 by Dr. Jose C. Gonzales (Dr. Gonzales) stating that and are also undergoing trial for plunder. It is unclear whether
petitioner is suffering from numerous debilitating conditions. This petitioner’s incarceration aggravates his medical conditions or if
certification was submitted as an annex to a Manifestation before his medical conditions are simply conditions which come with
this court regarding the remoteness of the possibility of flight of advanced age. The majority has not set specific bases for finding
the accused not for the purposes of asking for bail due to such that the medical condition of petitioner entitles him to treatment
ailments. Nowhere in the rules of procedure do we allow the grant different from all those who are now under detention and
of bail based on judicial notice of a doctor’s certification. In doing undergoing trial for plunder. There is no showing as to how grave
so, we effectively suspend our rules on evidence by doing away his conditions are in relation to the facilities that are made
with cross-examination and authentication of Dr. Gonzales’ available to him. There is also no showing as to whether any of
findings on petitioner’s health in a hearing whose main purpose is his medical ailments is actually aggravating in spite of the best
to determine whether no kind of alternative detention is possible. care available. If his health is deteriorating, there is no showing
Same; Same; Same; View that assuming that the medical that it is his detention that is the most significant factor or cause
ailments of petitioner are relevant issues for bail, the prosecution is for such deterioration. Usually, when there is a medical
now deprived of a fair opportunity to present any evidence that emergency that would make detention in the hospital necessary,
may rebut the findings of Dr. Gonzales or any other medical courts do not grant bail. They merely modify the conditions for the
documents presented by petitioner in this Court. Due process accused’s detention. There is now no clarity as to when special
requires that we remand this matter for a bail hearing to verify Dr. bail based on medical conditions and modified arrest should be
Gonzales’ findings and to ensure that that is still the condition imposed.
that prevails at present.—Petitioner’s medical ailments are not Same; Same; Same; View that bail is not a matter of right
matters that are of public knowledge or are capable of merely for medical reasons.—Bail is not a matter of right merely
unquestionable demonstration. His illness is not a matter of for medical reasons. In People v. Fitzgerald, 505 SCRA 573 (2006):
general notoriety. Assuming that the medical ailments of Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner
petitioner are relevant issues for bail, the prosecution is now needing medical care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of
deprived of a fair opportunity to present any evidence that may illness is not a ground for bail. It may be that the trend now is for
rebut the findings of Dr. Gonzales or any other medical courts to permit bail for prisoners who are seriously sick. There
documents presented by petitioner in this Court. Due process may also be an existing proposition for the “selective
requires that we remand this matter for a bail hearing to verify decarceration of older prisoners” based on findings that recidivism
Dr. Gonzales’ findings and to ensure that that is still the rates decrease as age increases.
condition that prevails at present. That we make factual Same; Same; Same; View that before the ink used to write and
determinations ourselves to grant provisional liberty to one who is print the majority opinion and this dissent has dried, friends,
obviously politically privileged without the benefit of the family, and colleagues of petitioner already strongly predict that
presentation of evidence by both the prosecution and the accused, he would report immediately for work. This strongly indicates that
without the prosecution being granted the op- the major-

290 291
ity’s inference as to the existence of very serious debilitating more prudent course of action would have been for the
illnesses may have been too speculative or premature.—Before the Sandiganbayan, not this court, to exercise its discretion in setting
ink used to write and print the majority opinion and this dissent the amount of bail.
has dried, friends, family, and colleagues of petitioner already Same; Same; Same; Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
strongly predict that he would report immediately for work. This View that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, relied upon
strongly indicates that the majority’s inference as to the existence in the majority opinion, is a general declaration to uphold the
of very serious debilitating illnesses may have been too value and dignity of every person. It does not prohibit the arrest of
speculative or premature. Significantly, there is no guidance to any accused based on lawful causes nor does it prohibit the
the Sandiganbayan as to whether bail then can be cancelled motu detention of any person accused of crimes.—There are no specific
propio or upon motion. There is no guidance as to whether that and binding international law provisions that compel this court to
motion to cancel bail should be filed before the Sandiganbayan or release petitioner given his medical condition. The Universal
before this court. Declaration of Human Rights, relied upon in the majority opinion,
Same; Same; Same; View that the crime charged in is a general declaration to uphold the value and dignity of every
petitioner’s case is one where the imposable penalty is reclusion person. It does not prohibit the arrest of any accused based on
perpetua. The Constitution and our rules require that bail can only lawful causes nor does it prohibit the detention of any person
be granted after granting the prosecution the opportunity to prove accused of crimes. It only implies that any arrest or detention
that evidence of guilt is strong. The special grant of bail, due to must be carried out in a dignified and humane manner.
medical conditions, is unique, extraordinary, and exceptional.— Same; Same; Same; View that even the Supreme Court (SC) in
The crime charged in petitioner’s case is one where the imposable Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Hon.
penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Constitution and our rules Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470 (2007), was wary to grant bail without
require that bail can only be granted after granting the evidence presented that the accused was not a flight risk.—In any
prosecution the opportunity to prove that evidence of guilt is case, even this court in Government of Hong Kong Special
strong. The special grant of bail, due to medical conditions, is Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470 (2007),
unique, extraordinary, and exceptional. To allow petitioner to go was wary to grant bail without evidence presented that the
about his other duties would be to blatantly flaunt a violation of accused was not a flight risk. For this reason, it remanded the
the provisions of the Constitution and our rules. In other words, case to the trial court instead of applying the provisions of the
there is no rule on whether the grant of provisional liberty on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and categorically stating
basis of humanitarian considerations extends even after the that based on these principles alone, the accused was entitled to
medical emergency has passed. Again, a case of a decision bail. It is true that the Constitution is replete with provisions on
especially tailored for petitioner. both the respect for human dignity and the protection of human
Same; Same; Same; View that the more prudent course of rights. These rights are applicable to those who, during the dark
action would have been for the Sandiganbayan, not the Supreme days of Martial Law, were illegally detained, tortured, and even
Court (SC), to exercise its discretion in setting the amount of bail. involuntarily disappeared. There is, of course, no reason for these
—There is no evidentiary basis for the determination of rights and the invocation of human dignity not to be applicable to
P1,000,000.00 as the amount for bail. The original proposal of the Senators of our Republic.
member in charge was P100,000.00. This was increased to Same; Same; Same; View that suspending the applicability of
P500,000.00 in its revised proposal circulated on August 14, 2015. clear legal provisions upon the invocation of human rights compels
Then, upon the request of one member who voted with the this court to do a more conscious and rigorous analysis of how
majority, it was then increased to P1,000,000.00. The rules guide these provisions violate specific binding human rights norms.—
courts on what to consider when setting the amount of bail. The The mere
majority opinion is sparse on the evidence it considers for setting
this particular amount. Again, the
Estelito P. Mendoza, Susan A. Mendoza, Lorenzo G.

292 Timbol, Ma. Donnabel T. Tan, Marie Krizel P. Malabanan,
Eleazar B. Reyes, Joseph B. Sagandoy, Jr., Edwardson L.
invocation of the broadest concept of human rights is not Ong, Erwin G. Matib and Kay Angela R. Peñaflorida for
shibboleth. It should not be cause for us to be nonchalant about Juan Ponce Enrile.
the existence of other constitutional and statutory provisions and The Solicitor General for respondents.
the norms in our Rules of Court. The mere invocation of human
rights does not mean that the Rule of Law is suspended. It is not BERSAMIN, J.:
a shortcut to arrive at the conclusion or result that we want.
Rather, human rights are best entrenched with the Rule of Law. The decision whether to detain or release an accused
Suspending the applicability of clear legal provisions upon the before and during trial is ultimately an incident of the
invocation of human rights compels this court to do a more judicial power to hear and determine his criminal case. The
conscious and rigorous analysis of how these provisions violate strength of the Prosecution’s case, albeit a good measure of
specific binding human rights norms. the accused’s propensity for flight or for causing harm to
the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail,
Same; Same; Same; View that those that read a decision
which is to ensure that the accused appears at trial.1
which does not fully respond to the legal issues outlined in this

dissent may be tempted to conclude that the decision is the result
The Case
of obvious political accommodation rather than a judicious

consideration of the facts and the law.—Those that read a decision
Before the Court is the petition for certiorari filed by
which does not fully respond to the legal issues outlined in this
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile to assail and annul the
dissent may be tempted to conclude that the decision is the result
resolutions dated July 14, 20142 and August 8, 20143
of obvious political accommodation rather than a judicious
issued by the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) in Case No.
consideration of the facts and the law. This case may benefit one
SB-14-CRM-0238, where he has been charged with plunder
powerful public official at the cost of weakening our legal
along with several others. Enrile insists that the
institutions. If it is pro hac vice, then it amounts to selective
resolutions, which respectively denied his Motion To Fix
justice. If it is meant to apply in a blanket manner for all other
Bail and his Motion For Reconsideration, were issued with
detainees, then it will weaken the administration of justice
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
because the judicial standards are not clear.
jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; View that the grant of provisional liberty
to petitioner without any determination of whether the evidence of _______________
guilt is strong violates the clear and unambiguous text of the
Constitution.—The grant of provisional liberty to petitioner 1 See Lindermayer, Ariana, What the Right Hand Gives: Prohibitive
without any determination of whether the evidence of guilt is Interpretations of the State Constitutional Right to Bail, Fordham Law
strong violates the clear and unambiguous text of the Review, Vol. 78, Issue 1, pp. 307-309 (2009).
Constitution. It may be that, as citizens, we have our own 2 Rollo, pp. 79-88; penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-
opinions on or predilections for how the balance of fundamental Tang and concurred in by Associate Justices Samuel R. Martires and Alex
rights, liberties, and obligations should be. It may be that, as L. Quiroz.
citizens, such opinions are founded on our wealth of knowledge 3 Id., at pp. 89-102.
and experience.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari.
294
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

293 Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 293 Antecedents

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 the penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal, not
involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations reclusion perpetua; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his
under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).4 age and physical condition must further be seriously
On June 10, 2014 and June 16, 2014, Enrile respectively considered.
filed his Omnibus Motion5 and Supplemental Opposition,6 On July 14, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued its first
praying, among others, that he be allowed to post bail assailed resolution denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail,
should probable cause be found against him. The motions disposing thusly:
were heard by the Sandiganbayan after the Prosecution
filed its Consolidated Opposition.7 x x x [I]t is only after the prosecution shall have presented its
On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued its evidence and the Court shall have made a determination that the
resolution denying Enrile’s motion, particularly on the evidence of guilt is not strong against accused Enrile can he
matter of bail, on the ground of its prematurity considering demand bail as a matter of right. Then and only then will the
that Enrile had not yet then voluntarily surrendered or Court be duty-bound to fix the amount of his bail.
been placed under the custody of the law.8 Accordingly, the To be sure, no such determination has been made by the Court.
Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Enrile.9 In fact, accused Enrile has not filed an application for bail.
On the same day that the warrant for his arrest was Necessarily, no bail hearing can even commence. It is thus
issued, Enrile voluntarily surrendered to Director exceedingly premature for accused Enrile to ask the Court to fix
Benjamin Magalong of the Criminal Investigation and his bail.
Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and x x x x
was later on confined at the Philippine National Police Accused Enrile next argues that the Court should grant him
(PNP) General Hospital following his medical bail because while he is charged with plunder, “the maximum
examination.10 penalty that may be possibly imposed on him is reclusion
Thereafter, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the temporal, not reclusion perpetua.” He anchors this claim on
PNP General Hospital,11 and his Motion to Fix Bail,12 both Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080, as amended, and on the allegation that
dated July 7, 2014, which were heard by the he is over seventy (70) years old and that he voluntarily
Sandiganbayan on surrendered. “Accordingly, it may be said that the crime charged
against Enrile is not punishable by reclusion perpetua, and thus
bailable.”
_______________
The argument has no merit.
4 Id., at pp. 107-108. x x x x
5 Id., at pp. 103-157.
6 Id., at pp. 163-192. _______________
7 Id., at pp. 193-221.
13 Id., at p. 13.
8 Id., at pp. 222-241.
9 Id., at p. 241.
10 Id., at pp. 242-243.
11 Id., at pp. 244-247.
296
12 Id., at pp. 249-256.


295
x x x [F]or purposes of bail, the presence of mitigating

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 295 circumstance/s is not taken into consideration. These
circumstances will only be appreciated in the imposition of the
proper penalty after trial should the accused be found guilty of the
offense charged. x x x
July 8, 2014.13 In support of the motions, Enrile argued x x x x
that he should be allowed to post bail because: (a) the Lastly, accused Enrile asserts that the Court should already fix
Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his his bail because he is not a flight risk and his physical condition
guilt was strong; (b) although he was charged with plunder, must also be seriously considered by the Court.
Admittedly, the accused’s age, physical condition and his being ever) is strong; hence, Enrile is entitled to bail
a flight risk are among the factors that are considered in fixing a as a matter of right.
reasonable amount of bail. However, as explained above, it is x x x x
premature for the Court to fix the amount of bail without an D. At any rate, Enrile may be bailable as he is not
anterior showing that the evidence of guilt against accused Enrile a flight risk.16
is not strong.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Juan Ponce
Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail dated July 7, 2014 is DENIED for lack Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an
of merit. accused is entitled to bail as matter of right; that it is the
SO ORDERED.14 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
On August 8, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued its second Prosecution has failed to establish that Enrile, if convicted
assailed resolution to deny Enrile’s motion for of plunder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua considering
reconsideration filed vis-à-vis the July 14, 2014 the presence of two mitigating circumstances — his age
resolution.15 and his voluntary surrender; that the Prosecution has not
Enrile raises the following grounds in support of his come forward with proof showing that his guilt for the
petition for certiorari, namely: crime of plunder is strong; and that he should not be
considered a flight risk taking into account that he is
A. Before judgment of the already over the age of 90, his medical condition, and his
Sandiganbayan, Enrile is social standing.
bailable as a matter of right. In its Comment,17 the Ombudsman contends that
Enrile may be deemed to fall Enrile’s right to bail is discretionary as he is charged with
within the exception only upon a capital offense; that to be granted bail, it is mandatory
concurrence of two (2) that a bail hearing be conducted to determine whether
circumstances: (i) where the there is strong evidence of his guilt, or the lack of it; and
offense is punishable by that entitlement to
reclusion perpetua, and (ii)
when evidence of guilt is strong.
_______________
_______________ 16 Id., at pp. 16-19.

17 Id., at pp. 526-542.
14 Id., at pp. 84-88.
15 Id., at pp. 89-102.

298
297
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 297 Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)

bail considers the imposable penalty, regardless of the
attendant circumstances.
x x x x
B. The prosecution failed to show clearly and Ruling of the Court
conclusively that Enrile, if ever he would be
convicted, is punishable by reclusion perpetua; The petition for certiorari is meritorious.
hence, Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of
right. 1.
x x x x Bail protects the right of the accused
C. The prosecution failed to show clearly and to due process and to be presumed innocent
conclusively that evidence of Enrile’s guilt (if
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be x x x All persons, except those charged with offenses
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.18 The punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
presumption of innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
released on bail,19 and further binds the court to wait until bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
after trial to impose any punishment on the accused.20 habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent
the accused from committing additional crimes.21 The
purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the This constitutional provision is repeated in Section 7,
accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial Rule 11424 of the Rules of Court, as follows:
court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by
the presence of the accused when so required, but it should reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable.—No person
be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
purpose.22 Thus, bail acts as a rec- reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail
when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
_______________ criminal prosecution.
18 Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

19 Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, G.R. No. A capital offense in the context of the rule refers to an
148571, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 623, where the Court said that offense that, under the law existing at the time of its
the constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in commission and the application for admission to bail, may
favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom be punished with death.25
as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved
beyond reasonable doubt; see also Baradaran, Shima, Restoring the
_______________
Presumption of Innocence, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 72, p. 728 (2011).
20 Baradaran, id., at p. 736. 23 Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010, 615
21 Id., at p. 731. SCRA 619, 628.
22 Yap, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001, 358 24 As amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, December 1, 2000.
SCRA 564, 572. 25 Section 6, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.

299 300
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 299 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
onciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s The general rule is, therefore, that any person, before
interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable,
and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an
at trial.23 offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong.
2. Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is
Bail may be granted as a matter detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can
of right or of discretion claim the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill
of Rights, and he retains his right to bail unless he is
The right to bail is expressly afforded by Section 13, charged with a capital offense, or with an offense
Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, viz.: punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
and the evidence of his guilt is strong.26 Once it has been

established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to (c) That he committed the offense while under probation,
bail shall be recognized.27 parole, or conditional pardon;
As a result, all criminal cases within the competence of (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, probability of flight if released on bail; or
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another
Court are bailable as matter of right because these courts crime during the pendency of the appeal.
have no jurisdiction to try capital offenses, or offenses
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. 3.
Likewise, bail is a matter of right prior to conviction by the Admission to bail in offenses punished
Regional Trial Court (RTC) for any offense not punishable by death, or life imprisonment, or reclusion
by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or even perpetua is subject to judicial discretion
prior to conviction for an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when evidence of For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of
guilt is not strong.28 whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases
involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable with
_______________ reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the
discretion of the trial court. But, as the Court has held in
26 Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, supra Concerned Citizens v. Elma,30 “such discretion may be
note 19 at p. 693. exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the
27 Id. degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or
28 Section 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides: not he should be granted provi-
Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception.—All persons in custody
shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or _______________
released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or
after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, 29 Section 5, paragraph 1, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) 30 A.M. No. RTJ-94-1183, February 6, 1995, 241 SCRA 84, 88.
before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable

by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

302

301
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 301
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) sional liberty.” It is axiomatic, therefore, that bail cannot
be allowed when its grant is a matter of discretion on the
On the other hand, the granting of bail is discretionary: part of the trial court unless there has been a hearing with
(1) upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable notice to the Prosecution.31 The indispensability of the
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;29 or (2) if hearing with notice has been aptly explained in Aguirre v.
the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding Belmonte, viz.:32
six years, provided none of the circumstances enumerated
x x x Even before its pronouncement in the Lim case, this
under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, as
Court already ruled in People v. Dacudao, etc., et al. that a
follows:
hearing is mandatory before bail can be granted to an accused
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
who is charged with a capital offense, in this wise:
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration; The respondent court acted
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal irregularly in granting bail in a murder
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of case without any hearing on the motion
his bail without valid justification; asking for it, without bothering to ask
the prosecution for its conformity or
comment, as it turned out later, over
its strong objections. The court granted determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the
bail on the sole basis of the complaint accused is strong. For this purpose, a summary hearing
and the affidavits of three policemen,
means —
not one of whom apparently witnessed
the killing. Whatever the court x x x such brief and speedy method of receiving and
possessed at the time it issued the
questioned ruling was intended only for considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent
prima facie determining whether or not with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the
there is sufficient ground to engender a weight of evidence for purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court
well-founded belief that the crime was does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to
committed and pinpointing the persons the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against
who probably committed it. Whether or
the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on
not the evidence of guilt is strong for
each individual accused still has to be what further evidence may be therein offered or admitted. The
established unless the prosecution course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court which
submits the issue on whatever it has may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to
already presented. To appreciate the substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the
strength or weakness of the evidence of examination and cross examination.33
guilt, the prosecution must be
consulted or heard. It is equally
In resolving bail applications of the accused who is
entitled as the accused to due process.
x x x x charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion
_______________
_______________
31 Gacal v. Infante, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845 (formerly A.M. No. I.P.I.
No. 03-1831-RTJ), October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 535, 536. 33 Cortes v. Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997, 279
32 A.M. No. RTJ-93-1052, October 27, 1994, 237 SCRA 778, 789-790. SCRA 1, 11.

303 304
Certain guidelines in the fixing of a perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial judge is expected to
bailbond call for the presentation of comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. Catral,34 to
evidence and reasonable opportunity wit:
for the prosecution to refute it. Among 1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or
them are the nature and circumstances
of the crime, character and reputation
of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing
of the accused, the weight of the of the application for bail or require him to
evidence against him, the probability of submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule
the accused appearing at the trial, 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended);
whether or not the accused is a fugitive 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
from justice, and whether or not the hearing of the application for bail regardless of
accused is under bond in other cases.
(Section 6, Rule 114, Rules of Court) It whether or not the prosecution refuses to
is highly doubtful if the trial court can present evidence to show that the guilt of the
appreciate these guidelines in an ex accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the
parte determination where the Fiscal is court to exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7
neither present nor heard. and 8, supra)
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
The hearing, which may be either summary or based on the summary of evidence of the
otherwise, in the discretion of the court, should primarily prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge primarily factual in context, is ideally to be made by the
the accused upon the approval of the bailbond. trial court.
(Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for
denied. certiorari, the Court is guided by the earlier mentioned
principal purpose of bail, which is to guarantee the
4. appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so
Enrile’s poor health justifies required by the court. The Court is further mindful of the
his admission to bail Philippines’ responsibility in the international community
arising from the national commitment under the Universal
We first note that Enrile has averred in his Motion to Declaration of Human Rights 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.35 36 Id., at p. 260.
Enrile’s averment has been mainly uncontested by the 37 Worthy to mention at this juncture is that the Court En Banc, in
Prosecution, whose Opposition to the Motion to Fix Bail has People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004, 419 SCRA 537), a
only argued that — criminal prosecution for parricide in which the penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code,
_______________ appreciated the concurrence of two mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance as a privileged mitigating circumstance, and
34 Id., at p. 18. consequently lowered the penalty imposed on the accused to reclusion
35 Rollo, pp. 252-253. temporal in its medium period.

305 306
8. As regards the assertion that the maximum x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as
possible penalty that might be imposed upon value the worth and dignity of every person. This
Enrile is only reclusion temporal due to the commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our
presence of two mitigating circumstances, Constitution which provides: “The State values the dignity
suffice it to state that the presence or absence of of every human person and guarantees full respect for
mitigating circumstances is also not human rights.” The Philippines, therefore, has the
consideration that the Constitution deemed responsibility of protecting and promoting the right
worthy. The relevant clause in Section 13 is of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring
“charged with an offense punishable by.” It is, that those detained or arrested can participate in
therefore, the maximum penalty provided the proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide
by the offense that has bearing and not the without delay on the legality of the detention and
possibility of mitigating circumstances order their release if justified. In other words, the
being appreciated in the accused’s favor.36 Philippine authorities are under obligation to make
available to every person under detention such
Yet, we do not determine now the question of whether or remedies which safeguard their fundamental right
not Enrile’s averment on the presence of the two mitigating to liberty. These remedies include the right to be
circumstances could entitle him to bail despite the crime admitted to bail.38
alleged against him being punishable with reclusion This national commitment to uphold the fundamental
perpetua,37 simply because the determination, being 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 (2) Diffuse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing: (1) that composed of the following:
the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the a. Previous history of cerebrovascular disease
community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian with carotid and vertebral artery disease;
and compelling circumstances.39 (Annexes 1.4, 4.1)
In our view, his social and political standing and his b. Heavy coronary artery calcifications;
having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon (Annex 1.5)
his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his c. Ankle Brachial Index suggestive of arterial
flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His calcifications. (Annex 1.6)
personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for (3) Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmia (irregular
plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter heart beat) documented by Holter monitoring;
respect for the legal processes of this country. We also do (Annexes 1.7.1, 1.7.2)
not ignore that at an ear-
_______________
_______________
40 Rollo, pp. 559, 571-576.
38 Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, 41 Id., at pp. 339-340 (TSN of July 14, 2014).
Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007, 521 SCRA 470, 482 (bold
underscoring supplied for emphasis).
39 Rodriguez v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila, Br. 17, G.R. No.
157977, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 290, 298. 308

307 Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
(4) Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome (ACOS) and

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 307
postnasal drip syndrome; (Annexes 2.1, 2.2)
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) (5) Ophthalmology:
a. Age-related mascular degeneration, neovascular
lier time many years ago when he had been charged with s/p laser of the Retina, s/p Lucentis intra-ocular
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he injections; (Annexes 3.0, 3.1, 3.2)
already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for b. S/p Cataract surgery with posterior chamber
the legal processes, and was granted bail during the intraocular lens. (Annexes 3.1, 3.2)
pendency of his trial because he was not seen as a flight (6) Historical diagnoses of the following:
risk.40 With his solid reputation in both his public and his a. High blood sugar/diabetes on medications;
private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s b. High cholesterol levels/dyslipidemia;
judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail. c. Alpha thalassemia;
The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents d. Gait/balance disorder;
another compelling justification for his admission to bail, e. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (etiology
but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize. uncertain) in 2014;
In his testimony in the Sandiganbayan,41 Dr. Jose C. f. Benign prostatic hypertrophy (with documented
Gonzales, the Director of the Philippine General Hospital enlarged prostate on recent ultrasound).42
(PGH), classified Enrile as a geriatric patient who was
found during the medical examinations conducted at the Dr. Gonzales attested that the following medical
UP-PGH to be suffering from the following conditions: conditions, singly or collectively, could pose significant
risks to the life of Enrile, to wit: (1) uncontrolled
(1) Chronic Hypertension with fluctuating blood hypertension, because it could lead to brain or heart
pressure levels on multiple drug therapy; complications, including recurrence of stroke; (2)
(Annexes 1.1, 1.2, 1.3); arrhythmia, because it could lead to fatal or nonfatal
cardiovascular events, especially under stressful

conditions; (3) coronary calcifications associated with heart of the present condition of the accused vis-à-vis
coronary artery disease, because they could indicate a the facilities of the hospital?
future risk for heart attack under stressful conditions; and DR. SERVILLANO:
(4) exacerbations of ACOS, because they could be triggered Yes, Your Honor. I have a fear.
by certain circumstances (like excessive heat, humidity,
dust or allergen exposure) which could cause a
deterioration in patients with asthma or COPD.43
310
_______________
42 Id., at pp. 373-374 (bold underscoring supplied for emphasis). 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
43 Id., at pp. 334-335, 374-375. Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)

JUSTICE MARTIRES:

That you will not be able to address in an emergency
309 situation?
DR. SERVILLANO:
Your Honor, in case of emergency situation we can
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 309
handle it but probably if the condition of the patient
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) worsen, we have no facilities to do those things, Your
Honor.45
Based on foregoing, there is no question at all that x x x x
Enrile’s advanced age and ill health required special

medical attention. His confinement at the PNP General
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless
Hospital, albeit at his own instance,44 was not even
of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the
recommended by the officer-in-charge (OIC) and the
merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is
internist doctor of that medical facility because of the
clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger
limitations in the medical support at that hospital. Their
his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his
testimonies ran as follows:
health and life would not serve the true objective of
x x x x preventive incarceration during the trial.
JUSTICE MARTIRES: Granting bail to Enrile on the foregoing reasons is not
The question is, do you feel comfortable with the continued unprecedented. The Court has already held in Dela Rama
confinement of Senator Enrile at the Philippine National v. The People’s Court:46
Police Hospital?
DR. SERVILLANO: x x x This court, in disposing of the first petition for certiorari,
No, Your Honor. held the following:
JUSTICE MARTIRES:
x x x [U]nless allowance of bail is forbidden by law in the
Director, doctor, do you feel comfortable with the
particular case, the illness of the prisoner, independently
continued confinement of Senator Enrile at the PNP
of the merits of the case, is a circumstance, and the
Hospital?
humanity of the law makes it a consideration which
PSUPT. JOCSON:
should, regardless of the charge and the stage of the
No, Your Honor.
proceeding, influence the court to exercise its discretion to
JUSTICE MARTIRES:
admit the prisoner to bail; x x x47
Why?
PSUPT. JOCSON:
_______________
Because during emergency cases, Your Honor, we cannot
give him the best. 45 Id., at pp. 485-488 (TSN of September 4, 2014).
x x x x
46 77 Phil. 461 (October 2, 1946), in which the pending criminal case
JUSTICE MARTIRES:
against the petitioner was for treason.
At present, since you are the attending physician of the accused,
47 Id., at p. 462.
Senator Enrile, are you happy or have any fear in your

312

311 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 311
cation 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
x x x x
the issue of bail — whose existence is either admitted by
Considering the report of the Medical Director of the Quezon
the Prosecution, or is properly the subject of judicial notice
Institute to the effect that the petitioner “is actually suffering
— that the courts can already consider in resolving the
from minimal, early, unstable type of pulmonary tuberculosis, and
application for bail without awaiting the trial to finish.49
chronic, granular pharyngitis,” and that in said institute they
The Court thus balances the scales of justice by protecting
“have seen similar cases, later progressing into advance stages
the interest of the People through ensuring his personal
when the treatment and medicine are no longer of any avail”;
appearance at the trial, and at the same time realizing for
taking into consideration that the petitioner’s previous petition
him the guarantees of due process as well as to be
for bail was denied by the People’s Court on the ground that the
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
petitioner was suffering from quiescent and not active
Accordingly, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan
tuberculosis, and the implied purpose of the People’s Court in
arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the
sending the petitioner to the Quezon Institute for clinical
appearance of the accused during the trial; and
examination and diagnosis of the actual condition of his lungs,
unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile
was evidently to verify whether the petitioner is suffering from
health and advanced age of Enrile. As such, the
active tuberculosis, in order to act accordingly in deciding his
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying
petition for bail; and considering further that the said People’s
Enrile’s Motion To Fix Bail. Grave abuse of discretion, as
Court has adopted and applied the well-established doctrine cited
the ground for the issuance of the writ of certiorari,
in our above quoted resolution, in several cases, among them, the
connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as
cases against Pio Duran (case No. 3324) and Benigno Aquino
is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.50 The abuse
(case No. 3527), in which the said defendants were released on
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
bail on the ground that they were ill and their continued
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty
confinement in New Bilibid Prison would be injurious to their
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as
health or endanger their life; it is evident and we consequently
where the
hold that the People’s Court acted with grave abuse of discretion
in refusing to release the petitioner on bail.48
_______________

49 Bravo, Jr. v. Borja, No. L-65228, February 18, 1985, 134 SCRA 466,
It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty
where the Court observed:
to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition
To allow bail on the basis of the penalty to be actually imposed would
be properly addressed and better attended to by competent
require a consideration not only of the evidence of the commission of the
physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only
crime but also evidence of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more
There would then be a need for a complete trial, after which the judge
importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the
would be just about ready to render a decision in the case. As perceptively
trial.
observed by the Solicitor General, such procedure would defeat the
On the other hand, to mark time in order to wait for the
purpose of bail, which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty
trial to finish before a meaningful consideration of the
pending trial.
appli-
50 Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), G.R. No. 129406,
March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 119, 127; Litton Mills, Inc. v. Galleon Trader,
_______________
Inc., No. L-40867, July 26, 1988, 163 SCRA 489, 494.
48 Id., at pp. 465-466.

313 corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. —

Const., Art. III, Sec. 13
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 313
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) bread. — The Red Lily, Chapter 7 (1894) by Anatole France,
French novelist (1844-1924)
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or hostility.51
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for I dissent.
certiorari; ISSUES the writ of certiorari ANNULING and This Petition for Certiorari should not be granted. The
SETTING ASIDE the Resolutions issued by the action of the Sandiganbayan in denying the Motion to Fix
Sandiganbayan (Third Division) in Case No. SB-14-CRM- Bail was proper. Bail is not a matter of right in cases where
0238 on July 14, 2014 and August 8, 2014; ORDERS the the crime charged is plunder and the imposable penalty is
PROVISIONAL RELEASE of petitioner Juan Ponce reclusion perpetua.
Enrile in Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238 upon posting of a cash Neither was there grave abuse of discretion by the
bond of P1,000,000.00 in the Sandiganbayan; and Sandiganbayan when it failed to release accused on bail for
DIRECTS the immediate release of petitioner Juan Ponce medical or humanitarian reasons. His release for medical
Enrile from custody unless he is being detained for some and humanitarian reasons was not the basis for his prayer
other lawful cause. in his Motion to Fix Bail1 filed before the Sandiganbayan.
No pronouncement on costs of suit. Neither did he base his prayer for the grant of bail in this
SO ORDERED. Petition on his medical condition.
The grant of bail, therefore, by the majority is a special
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Perez and accommodation for petitioner. It is based on a ground never
Mendoza, JJ., concur. raised before the Sandiganbayan or in the pleadings filed
Sereno, CJ., I join the Dissent of J. Leonen. before this court. The Sandiganbayan should not be faulted
Carpio, J., I join the Dissent of J. Leonen. for
Peralta, J., For humanitarian reasons.
Del Castillo, J., I concur in the result based on _______________
humanitarian grounds.
Villarama, Jr., J., On Official Leave. 1 Petition for Certiorari, Annex I.
Reyes, J., On Sick Leave.

Perlas-Bernabe, J., I join the Dissent of J. Leonen.

Leonen, J., I dissent. See Separate Opinion.
Jardeleza, J., No part. Prior OSG action. 315

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 315
314
not shedding their neutrality and impartiality. It is not the

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED duty of an impartial court to find what it deems a better
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) argument for the accused at the expense of the prosecution
and the people they represent.
DISSENTING OPINION The allegation that petitioner suffers from medical
conditions that require very special treatment is a question
LEONEN, J.: of fact. We cannot take judicial notice of the truth
contained in a certification coming from one doctor. This
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable doctor has to be presented as an expert witness who will be
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, subjected to both direct and cross-examination so that he
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released can properly manifest to the court the physical basis for his
on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall inferences as well as the nature of the medical condition of
not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas petitioner. Rebutting evidence that may be presented by
the prosecution should also be considered. All this would be On June 5, 2014, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (Enrile)
proper before the Sandiganbayan. Again, none of this was was charged with the crime of plunder punishable under
considered by the Sandiganbayan because petitioner Republic Act No. 7080.2 Section 2 of this law provides:
insisted that he was entitled to bail as a matter of right on
grounds other than his medical condition. SEC. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties.—Any
Furthermore, the majority’s opinion — other than the public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of
invocation of a general human rights principle — does not his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
provide clear legal basis for the grant of bail on associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses accumulates or
humanitarian grounds. Bail for humanitarian acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt
considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of or criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof in the
Court nor found in any statute or provision of the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
Constitution. (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall
This case leaves this court open to a justifiable criticism be punished by reclusion perpetua to death[.] (Emphasis
of granting a privilege ad hoc: only for one person — supplied)
petitioner in this case.

Worse, it puts pressure on all trial courts and the
On June 10, 2014, Enrile filed an Omnibus Motion
Sandiganbayan that will predictably be deluged with
before the Sandiganbayan, praying that he be allowed to
motions to fix bail on the basis of humanitarian
post bail if
considerations. The lower courts will have to decide,
without guidance, whether bail should be granted because
_______________
of advanced age, hypertension, pneumonia, or dreaded
diseases. They will have to decide whether this is 2 An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, as Amended
applicable only to Senators and former Presidents charged by Rep. Act No. 7659 (1993).
with plunder and not to those accused of drug trafficking,
multiple incestuous rape, serious illegal detention,

317
315
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 317

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 315 Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)
the Sandiganbayan should find probable cause against
and other crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua or life him.3 On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied the
imprisonment. They will have to decide whether this is Omnibus Motion on the ground of prematurity since no
applicable only to those who are in special detention warrant of arrest had been issued at that time. In the same
facilities and not to the aging or sick detainees in Resolution, the Sandiganbayan ordered Enrile’s arrest.4
overcrowded detention facilities all over this country. On the same day the warrant of arrest was issued and
Our trial courts and the Sandiganbayan will decide on served, Enrile proceeded to the Criminal Investigation and
the basis of personal discretion causing petitions for Detection Group of the Philippine National Police in Camp
certiorari to be filed before this court. This will usher in an Crame, Quezon City.5
era of truly selective justice not based on clear legal On July 7, 2014, Enrile filed a Motion to Fix Bail,
provisions, but one that is unpredictable, partial, and solely arguing that his alleged age and voluntary surrender were
grounded on the presence or absence of human compassion mitigating and extenuating circumstances that would
on the day that justices of this court deliberate and vote. lower the imposable penalty to reclusion temporal.6 He also
Not only is this contrary to the Rule of Law, it also argued that his alleged age and physical condition
undermines the legitimacy and the stability of our entire indicated that he was not a flight risk.7 His prayer states:
judicial system.
WHEREFORE, accused Enrile prays that the Honorable Court
I allow Enrile to post bail, and forthwith set the amount of bail
pending determination that (a) evidence of guilt is strong; (b)

uncontroverted mitigating circumstances of at least 70 years old After the prosecution’s submission of its Opposition to
and voluntary surrender will not lower the imposable penalty to the Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital, the
reclusion temporal; and (c) Enrile is a flight risk [sic].8 Sandiganbayan held a hearing on July 9, 2014 to resolve
this Motion.
On July 9, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order
The Office of the Ombudsman filed its Opposition to the allowing Enrile to remain at the Philippine National Police
Motion to Fix Bail9 dated July 9, 2014. Enrile filed a General Hospital for medical examination until further
Reply10 dated July 11, 2014. orders of the court.16
_______________ _______________
3 Ponencia, p. 294. 11 Petition for Certiorari, Annex L.

4 Id. 12 Id., at p. 2.
5 Id. 13 Id.
6 Petition for Certiorari, Annex I, pp. 4-5. 14 Id.
7 Id., at p. 5. 15 Id., at p. 3.
8 Id., at pp. 6-7. 16 Petition for Certiorari, Annex O, p. 5.
9 Petition for Certiorari, Annex J.
10 Petition for Certiorari, Annex K.

319
318
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 319
This Order regarding his detention at the Philippine
National Police General Hospital is not the subject of this
Pending the resolution of his Motion to Fix Bail, Enrile Petition for Certiorari. Enrile did not ask that this
filed a Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital11 Order be declared invalid or null and void.
dated July 4, 2014, arguing that “his advanced age and On July 14, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued the
frail medical condition”12 merit hospital arrest in the Resolution17 denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail for being
Philippine National Police General Hospital under such premature,18 stating that:
conditions that may be prescribed by the Sandiganbayan.13
He also prayed that in the event of a medical emergency [I]t is only after the prosecution shall have presented its
that cannot be addressed by the Philippine National Police evidence and the Court shall have made a determination that the
General Hospital, he may be allowed to access an outside evidence of guilt is not strong against accused Enrile can he
medical facility.14 His prayer states: demand bail as a matter of right. Then and only then will the
Court be duty-bound to fix the amount of his bail.
WHEREFORE, accused Enrile prays that the Honorable Court To be sure, no such determination has been made by the Court.
temporarily place him under hospital confinement at the PNP In fact, accused Enrile has not filed an application for bail.
General Hospital at Camp Crame, Quezon City, with continuing Necessarily, no bail hearing can even commence. It is thus
authority given to the hospital head or administrator to exercise exceedingly premature for accused Enrile to ask the Court to fix
his professional medical judgment or discretion to allow Enrile’s his bail.19
immediate access of, or temporary visit to, another medical
facility outside of Camp Crame, in case of emergency or necessity,
secured with appropriate guards, but after completion of the Enrile filed a Motion for Reconsideration,20 reiterating
appropriate medical treatment or procedure, he be returned that there were mitigating and extenuating circumstances
forthwith to the PNP General Hospital.15 that would modify the imposable penalty and that his frail
health proved that he was not a flight risk.21 The
Sandiganbayan, however, denied the Motion on August 8,
2014.22 Hence, this Petition for Certiorari was filed.
ordinarily understood as two different concepts: (1) bail as

II a matter of right and (2) bail as a matter of discretion.
Thus, Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 114 provide:
The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of
discretion when it denied the Motion to Fix Bail for _______________
prematurity. It
23 See Gimenez v. Nazareno, 243 Phil. 274, 278; 160 SCRA 1, 4 (1988)
[Per J. Gancayco, En Banc].
_______________
24 See Rev. Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 114, Sec. 3.
17 Petition for Certiorari, Annex A.
18 Id., at pp. 6 and 10.
19 Id., at p. 6.
20 Petition for Certiorari, Annex L. 321
21 Id., at pp. 3-5.
22 Petition for Certiorari, Annex B, p. 14.
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 321

320 SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception.—All persons in
custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by
law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction
was following entrenched and canonical procedures for bail by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
based upon the Constitution and the Rules of Court. reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
A trial court — in this case, the Sandiganbayan — SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary.—Upon conviction by the
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused through Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
his or her arrest.23 The consequent detention is to ensure reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is
that the accused will appear when required by the Rules discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon
and by order of the court trying the offense.24 The by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided
provisions on bail provide a balance between the accused’s it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court.
right to be presumed innocent on one hand and the due However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused
process rights of the state to be able to effect the accused’s changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable,
prosecution on the other hand. That balance is not the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the
exclusively judicially determined. The Constitution frames appellate court.
judicial discretion.
Then in Section 7 of Rule 114:
Thus, Article III, Section 13 states:
ARTICLE III SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion
Bill of Rights 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
SECTION 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
criminal prosecution. (Emphasis supplied)
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 The mandatory bail hearing is only to determine the
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. amount of bail when it is a matter of right. On the other
hand, mandatory bail hearings are held when an accused is

charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or
The doctrine on bail is so canonical that it is clearly
life imprisonment, not only to fix the amount of bail but
provided in our Rules of Court. The grant of bail is
fundamentally to determine whether the evidence of guilt

is strong.
323

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 323
322

The ruling in Herras Teehankee was applied in Ocampo
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) v. Bernabe:29
The mandatory character of a bail hearing was first We have held in Herras Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, that
addressed in the 1945 case of Herras Teehankee v. Rovira25 all persons shall before conviction be bailable except when the
where this court ordered the People’s Court to conduct a charge is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. The
bail hearing despite the accused being charged with a general rule, therefore, is that all persons, whether charged or not
capital offense.26 This court reasoned that “the hearing is yet charged, are, before their conviction, entitled to provisional
for the purpose of enabling the People’s Court to exercise release on bail, the only exception being where the charge is a
its sound discretion as to whether or not under the capital offense and the evidence of guilt is found to be strong. At
Constitution and laws in force[,] petitioner is entitled to the hearing of the application for bail, the burden of showing that
provisional release under bail.”27 the case falls within the exception is on the prosecution, according
A year later, this court clarified its orders to the People’s to Rule 110, Section 7. The determination of whether or not the
Court and gave the following instructions: evidence of guilt is strong is, as stated in the Herras Teehankee
case, a matter of judicial discretion. This discretion, by the very
(1) In capital cases like the present, when the prosecutor does nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence
not oppose the petition for release on bail, the court should, as a is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is
general rule, in the proper exercise of its discretion, grant the directed to the weight of evidence and since evidence cannot
release after the approval of the bail which it should fix for the properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the
purpose; court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion
(2) But if the court has reasons to believe that the special requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the
prosecutor’s attitude is not justified, it may ask him questions to petitioner having the right of cross-examination and to introduce
ascertain the strength of the state’s evidence or to judge the his own evidence in rebuttal. Mere affidavits or recital of their
adequacy of the amount of bail; contents are not sufficient since they are mere hearsay evidence,
(3) When, however, the special prosecutor refuses to answer unless the petitioner fails to object thereto.30 (Emphasis supplied,
any particular question on the ground that the answer may citations omitted)
involve a disclosure imperiling the success of the prosecution or
jeopardizing the public interest, the court may not compel him to
do so, if and when he exhibits a statement to that effect of the Herras Teehankee was also applied in Feliciano v.
Solicitor General, who, as head of the Office of Special Pasicolan, etc., et al.31 and Siazon v. Hon. Presiding Judge
Prosecutors, is vested with the direction and control of the of the Circuit Criminal Court, etc., et al.32
prosecution, and may not, even at the trial, be ordered by the
court to present evidence which he does not want to introduce — _______________
provided, of course, that such refusal shall not prejudice the
29 77 Phil. 55 (1946) [Per CJ. Moran, En Banc].
rights of the defendant or detainee.28
30 Id., at p. 58.
31 112 Phil. 781, 782-783; 2 SCRA 888, 889 (1961) [Per J. Natividad,
_______________
En Banc].
25 75 Phil. 634 (1945) [Per J. Hilado, En Banc]. 32 149 Phil. 241, 247; 42 SCRA 184, 186 (1971) [Per J. Makalintal, En
26 Id., at p. 644. Banc].
27 Id.
28 Herras Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756, 774 (1946)

[Per J. Hilado, En Banc].
324

We have disciplined numerous judges who violated this cused charged with capital offenses.36 This court could only
court’s instructions on the application of the constitutional lament on the deluge of these administrative cases, stating:
provisions regarding bail.
Basco v. Judge Rapatalo33 outlines these administrative It is indeed surprising, not to say, alarming, that the Court
cases promulgated from 1981 to 1996.34 Unfortunately, should be besieged with a number of administrative cases filed
there were still administrative complaints filed against against erring judges involving bail. After all, there is no dearth
judges for failing to hold a hearing for bail even after the of jurisprudence on the basic principles involving bail. As a
promulgation of Basco. matter of fact, the Court itself, through its Philippine Judicial
In Cortes v. Judge Catral,35 this court ordered Judge Academy, has been including lectures on the subject in the
Catral to pay a fine of P20,000.00 for granting bail to the regular seminars conducted for judges. Be that as it may, we
ac- reiterate the following duties of the trial judge in case an
application for bail is filed:
_______________ “1. In all cases, whether bail is a

matter of right or of discretion, notify
33 336 Phil. 214; 269 SCRA 220 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Second the prosecutor of the hearing of the
Division]. application for bail or require him to
34 Id., at pp. 221-227; pp. 227-233, citing People v. Sola, 191 Phil. 21; submit his recommendation (Section
103 SCRA 393 (1981) [Per CJ. Fernando, En Banc], People v. San Diego,
18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as
amended);
135 Phil. 514; 26 SCRA 522 (1968) [Per J. Capistrano, En Banc], People v. 2. Where bail is a matter of
Dacudao, 252 Phil. 507; 170 SCRA 489 (1989) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third discretion, conduct a hearing of the
Division], People v. Calo, Jr., 264 Phil. 1007; 186 SCRA 620 (1990) [Per J. application for bail regardless of
Bidin, En Banc], Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991, whether or not the prosecution refuses
to present evidence to show that the
199 SCRA 48 [Per J. Padilla, En Banc], People v. Nano, G.R. No. 94639,
guilt of the accused is strong for the
January 13, 1992, 205 SCRA 155 [Per J. Bidin, Third Division], Pico v. purpose of enabling the court to
Combong, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-91-764, November 6, 1992, 215 SCRA 421 exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7
[Per Curiam, En Banc], De Guia v. Maglalang, A.M. No. RTJ-89-306, and 8, supra)
3. Decide whether the guilt of the
March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 153 [Per Curiam, En Banc], Borinaga v. Tamin,
accused is strong based on the
A.M. No. RTJ-93-936, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 206, 216 [Per J. summary of evidence of the
Regalado, En Banc], Aurillo, Jr. v. Francisco, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1097, prosecution;
August 12, 1994, 235 SCRA 283 [Per J. Padilla, En Banc], Estoya v. 4. If the guilt of the accused is not
strong, discharge the accused upon the
Abraham-Singson, A.M. No. RTJ-91-758, September 26, 1994, 237 SCRA
approval of the bailbond (Section 19,
1 [Per Curiam, En Banc], Aguirre v. Belmonte, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1052, supra) Otherwise petition should be
October 27, 1994, 237 SCRA 778 [Per J. Regalado, En Banc], Lardizabal denied.”
v. Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-94-897, December 5, 1994, 238 SCRA 640 [Per J.
With such succinct but clear rules now incorporated in the
Padilla, En Banc], Guillermo v. Reyes, Jr., 310 Phil. 176; 240 SCRA 154
Rules of Court, trial judges are enjoined to study them well and be
(1995) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division], Santos v. Ofilada, 315 Phil. 11;
guided accordingly. Admittedly, judges cannot be held to account
245 SCRA 56 (1995) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc], Sule v. Biteng, 313 Phil.
for an erroneous decision ren-
398; 243 SCRA 524 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc], and Buzon, Jr. v.
Velasco, 323 Phil. 724; 253 SCRA 601 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban, En
_______________
Banc].
35 344 Phil. 415; 279 SCRA 1 (1997) [Per J. Romero, En Banc]. 36 Id., at pp. 430-431; p. 12.

325 326

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED In Chief State Prosecutor Zuño v. Judge Cabebe,45 Judge
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) Cabebe was fined P20,000.00 for granting bail, without the
requisite hearing, to the accused charged with possession of
illegal drugs.46
dered in good faith, but this defense is much too frequently cited
A bail hearing is mandatory even if the accused has not
even if not applicable. A number of cases on bail having already
filed an application for bail or the prosecutor already
been decided, this Court justifiably expects judges to discharge
recommends an amount for bail.
their duties assiduously. For a judge is called upon to exhibit
In Atty. Gacal v. Judge Infante:47
more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic Even where there is no petition for bail in a case like Criminal
legal principles. Faith in the administration of justice can only be Case No. 1138-03, a hearing should still be held. This hearing is
engendered if litigants are convinced that the members of the separate and distinct from the initial hearing to determine the
Bench cannot justly be charged with a deficiency in their grasp of existence of probable cause, in which the trial judge ascertains
legal principles.37 whether or not there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty of the crime. The Prosecution must be
The guidelines in Cortes fell on deaf ears as given a chance to show the strength of its evidence; otherwise, a
administrative cases continued to be filed against judges violation of due process occurs.
who failed to hold hearings in applications for bail. ....
In Docena-Caspe v. Judge Bugtas,38 the accused was Being the trial judge, Judge Infante had to be aware of the
charged with murder.39 Judge Bugtas initially denied the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the bail
accused’s petition for bail but granted his motion for hearing being mandatory and indispensable. He ought to have
reconsideration and set his bail without a hearing.40 As a remembered, then, that it was only through such hearing that he
result, Judge Bugtas was ordered to pay a fine of could be put in a position to determine whether the evidence for
P20,000.0041 for being “grossly ignorant of the rules and the Prosecution was weak or strong. Hence, his dispensing with
procedures in granting or denying bail[.]”42 the hearing manifested a gross ignorance of the law and the
In Marzan-Gelacio v. Judge Flores,43 the erring judge rules.48
was ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00 for granting bail to
the accused charged with rape without a hearing.44
_______________
_______________ 45 486 Phil. 605; 444 SCRA 382 (2004) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Third Division].
37 Id., citing Basco v. Rapatalo, 336 Phil. 214, 237; 269 SCRA 220,
46 Id., at pp. 611 and 618; p. 385.
243-244 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
47 674 Phil. 324; 658 SCRA 535 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First
38 448 Phil. 45; 400 SCRA 37 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division].
Division].
48 Id., at pp. 340-341; p. 550, citing Directo v. Bautista, 400 Phil. 1, 5;
39 Id., at p. 48; p. 41.
346 SCRA 223, 228-229 (2000) [Per J. Melo, Third Division] and Marzan-
40 Id., at pp. 49-50; p. 46.
Gelacio v. Flores, supra note 43 at p. 381; p. 19.
41 Id., at pp. 56-57; p. 48.
42 Id., at p. 56; p. 47.
43 389 Phil. 372; 334 SCRA 1 (2000) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division].
328
44 Id., at pp. 375 and 388; p. 13.

327
In the present charge of plunder, petitioner now insists

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 327 that this court justify that bail be granted without any
hearing before the Sandiganbayan on whether the evidence
of guilt is strong. During the hearing on petitioner’s Motion

to Fix Bail, the prosecution argued that any grant of bail establish the legal and factual basis for this special kind of
should be based only on their failure to establish the bail in this case.
strength of the evidence against him.49 The prosecution Yet, it now becomes the very basis for petitioner’s grant
had no opportunity to present rebuttal evidence based on of bail.
the prematurity of the Motion. In his Petition before this court, petitioner argued that:
Building on consistent precedent, the Sandiganbayan A. Before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, Enrile is
correctly denied petitioner’s Motion to Fix Bail for being bailable as a matter of right. Enrile may be deemed to
premature. The denial is neither “capricious, whimsical, fall within the exception only upon concurrence of two
arbitrary [nor] despotic”50 as to amount to grave abuse of (2) circumstances: (i) where the offense is punishable by
discretion. It was in accord with the clear provisions of the reclusion perpetua, and (ii) when evidence of guilt is
Constitution, jurisprudence, and long-standing rules of strong.
procedure.
Thus, this could not have been the basis for declaring It is the duty and burden of the prosecution to show
that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion clearly and conclusively that Enrile falls within the
when it denied petitioner’s Motion to Fix Bail. exception and exclusion from the right; and not the
burden of Enrile to show entitlement to his right.
III The prosecution failed to establish that Enrile’s case
falls within the exception; hence, denial of his right to
The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of bail by the Sandiganbayan was in grave abuse of
discretion when it failed to release petitioner on bail for discretion.
medical or
B. The prosecution failed to show clearly and conclusively
_______________ that Enrile, if ever he would be convicted, is punishable
by reclusion perpetua; hence, Enrile is entitled to bail as
49 Petition for Certiorari, Annex A, p. 2. a matter of right.
50 People v. Sandiganbayan, 490 Phil. 105, 116; 467 SCRA 137, 165
(2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division], citing People v. Court of The Sandiganbayan ignored the fact that the penalty
Appeals, G.R. No. 144332, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 610, 616 [Per J. prescribed by the Anti-Plunder Law itself for the
Callejo, Sr., Second Division], Rodson Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, crime of plunder is not only reclusion perpetua but
G.R. No. 141857, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 469, 480 [Per J. Callejo, Sr., also the penalty next lower in degree (or reclusion
Second Division], Matugas v. Commission on Elections, 465 Phil. 299, 313;
temporal) by “consider(ing) the attendance of
420 SCRA 365, 378 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc], Tomas Claudio
mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code.”
Memorial College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 467 Phil. 541, 553; 423 SCRA
122, 133 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division], and Condo Suite

Club Travel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 380 Phil. 660,

667; 323 SCRA 679, 686 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
330

329
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 329 Further proceedings to receive evidence of mitigating
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) circumstances is a needless formality.
humanitarian reasons. Petitioner did not ask that bail be C. The prosecution failed to show clearly and conclusively
granted because of his medical condition or for that evidence of Enrile’s guilt (if ever) is strong; hence,
humanitarian reasons. Neither petitioner nor the Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
prosecution as respondent developed their arguments on
Notwithstanding that the prosecution did not assert,
this point at the Sandiganbayan or in this court to
hence failed to raise in issue, in its Opposition to

Enrile’s motion for bail, that evidence of guilt is WHEREFORE, petitioner Enrile respectfully prays that
strong, in the light of the prosecution’s continuing the Honorable Court:
muteness to the defense’s repeated challenge for the a. ACT En Banc on the Petition for Certiorari;
prosecution to produce any “single piece of paper b. EXPEDITE the certiorari proceedings;
showing that Enrile received even a single peso of c. SET the Petition for Certiorari for oral
kickback,” the Sandiganbayan nonetheless insisted arguments; and
that Enrile must first initiate, and formally apply for, d. after due proceedings, ANNUL, REVERSE, and
the formal proceedings (“bail hearing”) before the SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution
prosecution may be called upon to discharge its duty dated July 14, 2014, and the Resolution dated
of proving evidence of guilt is strong. August 8, 2014, and forthwith GRANT BAIL in
favor of Enrile.
D. At any rate, Enrile may be bailable as he is not a Petitioner Enrile prays for such other and further relief
flight risk. as may be just and equitable.52
The exception to, or exclusion from, the right (“shall

be bailable”) does not become a prohibition (“shall not IV
be bailable”). Indeed, the exception to a mandatory
right (“shall”) is a permissive right (“may”). This case entailed long, arduous, and spirited discussion
A liberal interpretation is consistent with the rights among the justices of this court in and out of formal
to presumptive innocence and non-deprivation of deliberations. As provided by our rules and tradition, the
liberty without due process, and the theory behind the discussion
exception to right-to-bail.
Hence, if the theory is clearly shown not to exist as to _______________
Enrile (i.e., Enrile is demonstrated not being a flight
51 Petition for Certiorari, pp. 9-12.
risk), then bail may be granted to him.
52 Id., at p. 64.

331 332
Enrile is definitely not a flight risk, being of old age, was triggered by the submission of the member in charge of
frail physical and medical condition, and having a draft early this year. The draft mainly adopted the legal
voluntarily surrendered. arguments of the Petition which was centered on this court
Circumstances of official and social standing shows taking judicial notice of evidence to establish two generic
that Enrile is not a flight risk. mitigating circumstances that would lower the penalty to
Other circumstances negating Enrile’s disposition to be imposed even before trial or a hearing for the
become a fugitive from justice are also present. determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong
The following illustrative cases decided by the happened before the Sandiganbayan. Associate Justice
Supreme Court show that at this stage of the Estela Perlas-Bernabe and this member submitted their
proceeding, Enrile is entitled to bail a matter of reflections on this issue. Refutations and arguments were
right.51 vigorously exchanged in writing.
Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe and this
The prayer in his Petition reads: member adopted the common position that there was no
grave abuse of discretion and, therefore, the Petition
should be dismissed. At most, the Motion to Fix Bail could
be treated by the Sandiganbayan as a petition or
application for bail as in all cases where the statutorily
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, death, or life Fourth: What happens to the standing order of the
imprisonment. Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe Sandiganbayan which authorizes the accused to be brought to
and this member differed only in the treatment of any hospital immediately if he exhibits symptoms which cannot
mitigating circumstances and the interpretation of Bravo, be treated by the PNP hospital subject only to reportorial
Jr., etc. v. Hon. Borja, et al.53 requirements to the court? Are we also declaring that the
When this case was called again for deliberation during Sandiganbayan’s decisions in relation to their supervision of the
the En Banc session on August 11, 2015, the member-in- detention of the accused were tainted with grave abuse of
charge (now the ponente) proposed the idea of dropping all discretion?
discussion on the legal points pertaining to whether bail Fifth: What, if any, is the legal basis for humanitarian releases
was a matter of right and focusing the grant of bail on on bail? Or if we are able to hurdle the factual issues and find
“humanitarian” grounds. The member-in-charge committed that there is actually a medical necessity, should his detention
to circulate a draft for the consideration of all justices. This rather be modified? Do we have clear judicial precedents for
member expressed that he was open to listen to all hospital or house arrests for everyone?
arguments. Sixth: Without conceding, if the accused is released on bail so
The revised draft that centered on granting bail on the that his medical condition can be attended to,
basis of the medical condition of petitioner was circulated
on August 14, 2015. After considered reflection, this
member responded with a letter addressed to all the
justices, which stated: 334
_______________
53 219 Phil. 432; 134 SCRA 466 (1985) [Per J. Plana, First Division].

should he be returned to detention when he becomes well?
If he reports for work, does this not nullify the very basis of
333 the ponencia?
Seventh: What is the basis for P500,000.00 as bail? We
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 333 have established rules on what to consider when setting
the amount of bail. In relation to the accused and his
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) circumstances, what is our basis for setting this amount?
What evidence have we considered? Should this Court
In my view, there are several new issues occasioned by the rather than the Sandiganbayan exercise this discretion?
revisions in the proposed ponencia that need to be threshed out Eighth: What are our specific bases for saying that the
thoroughly so that the Sandiganbayan can be guided if and when medical condition of the accused entitles him to treatment
an accused charged with offenses punishable with reclusion different from all those who are now under detention and
perpetua should be released on bail “for humanitarian reasons.” undergoing trial for plunder? Is it simply his advanced age?
Among these are as follows: What qualifies for advanced age? Is it the medical
First: Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion conditions that come with advanced age? Would this apply
amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it applied the text of the to all those who have similar conditions and are also
Constitution, the rules of court, and the present canonical undergoing trial for plunder? Is he suffering from a unique
interpretations of these legal texts? debilitating disease which cannot be accommodated by the
Second: Are we taking judicial notice of the truth of the best care provided by our detention facilities or hospital or
contents of the certification of a certain Dr. Gonzalez? Or are we house arrest? Are there sufficient evidence and rules to
suspending our rules on evidence, that is, doing away with cross- support our conclusion?
examination and not appreciating rebutting evidence that may be Ninth: Are there more specific and binding international
or have been presented by the prosecution? law provisions, other than the Universal Declaration of
Third: Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of Human Rights, which specifically compel the release of an
discretion in appreciating the facts relating to the medical accused in his condition? Or are we now reading the
condition of the accused? Or are we substituting our judgment for general tenor of the declaration of human rights to apply
theirs? specifically to the condition of this accused? What entitles

the accused in this case to a liberal application of very Ordinarily, the drafts of the dissents would have been
general statements on human rights?54 available to all members of the court at the time that the
The points in my letter were raised during the case was voted upon. But because the final version for
deliberations of August 18, 2015. The member-in-charge, signing was
however, did not agree to wait for a more extensive written
reflection on the points raised. Insisting on a vote, he _______________
thus declared that he was abandoning the August 14,
2015 circulated draft centering on release on bail on 55 Ponencia, p. 305.
humanitarian \

_______________
336
54 J. Leonen, Letter to Colleagues dated August 18, 2015.

335
not the version voted upon, this member had to
substantially revise his dissent. Since the issue of
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 335
mitigating circumstances and bail as a matter of right was
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) no longer the basis of the ponencia, Associate Justice
Estela Perlas-Bernabe decided to graciously offer her
grounds for his earlier version premised on the idea points for the drafting of a single Dissenting Opinion and to
that bail was a matter of right based on judicial abandon her filing of a Separate Opinion and joining this
notice and the judicial declaration of the existence of member.
two mitigating circumstances. The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court allows one
This was the version voted upon at about 11:00 a.m. of week for the submission of a dissenting opinion. Thus, in
August 18, 2015. The only amendment to the majority Rule 13, Section 7 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC:
opinion accepted by the member-in-charge was the increase
of the proposed amount of bail to P1,000,000.00. SEC. 7. Dissenting, separate or concurring opinion.—A
The vote was 8 to 4 with Associate Justice Lucas P. Member who disagrees with the majority opinion, its conclusions,
Bersamin, who was the member-in-charge, emerging as the and the disposition of the case may submit to the Chief Justice or
ponente. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Senior Division Chairperson a dissenting opinion, setting forth the
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice reason or reasons for such dissent. A Member who agrees with the
Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and this member dissented. result of the case, but based on different reason or reasons may
During the oral arguments on the Torre de Manila case submit a separate opinion; a concurrence “in the result” should
or at about 3:00 p.m., the ponente passed around a state the reason for the qualified concurrence. A Member who
final copy of the majority opinion which was not the agrees with the main opinion, but opts to express other reasons
version voted upon during the morning’s for concurrence may submit a concurring opinion. The dissenting,
deliberation. Rather, the copy offered for signature was separate, or concurring opinion must be submitted within one week
substantially the August 14, 2015 circulated version from the date the writer of the majority opinion presents the
granting bail on humanitarian grounds. decision for the signature of the Members. (Emphasis supplied)
The current ponencia now does away with petitioner’s

entire argument, stating that:
But this member endeavored to complete his draft
Yet, we do not now determine the question of whether or
incorporating the ideas and suggestions of other dissenting
not Enrile’s averment on the presence of the two mitigating
justices within two days from the circulation of the
circumstances could entitle him to bail despite the crime
majority opinion.
alleged against him being punishable with reclusion
In the meantime, media, through various means, got
perpetua, simply because the determination, being
wind of the vote and started to speculate on the contents of
primarily factual in context, is ideally to be made by the
the majority opinion. This may have created expectations
trial court.55 (Citation omitted)
on the part of petitioner’s friends, family, and counsel. The
Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, while admitting

that the Decision had as yet not been promulgated and
served, made announcements as to their readiness to
338
receive the cash bond and process the release of the
accused even if August 19, 2015

337
Under Section 2 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 337
Evidence:
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.—A court may
take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or
happened to be a holiday in Quezon City, which was the are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be
seat of their court. known to judges because of their judicial functions.
This is the context of the apparent delay in the

announcements regarding the vote and the date of
In State Prosecutors v. Muro:58
promulgation of this judgment.
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three
V material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and
general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled
Despite brushing aside all of petitioner’s arguments, the and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be
majority, instead of denying the Petition for Certiorari, within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal
grants it on some other ground that was not even argued guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially
nor prayed for by petitioner. known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial
In essence, the majority now insists on granting bail notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of
merely on the basis of the certification in a Manifestation general notoriety.59
and Compliance dated August 14, 2014 by Dr. Jose C.
Gonzales (Dr. Gonzales) stating that petitioner is suffering
from numerous debilitating conditions.56 This certification Petitioner’s medical ailments are not matters that are of
was submitted as an annex to a Manifestation57 before this public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable
court regarding the remoteness of the possibility of flight of demonstration. His illness is not a matter of general
the accused not for the purposes of asking for bail due to notoriety.
such ailments. Assuming that the medical ailments of petitioner are
Nowhere in the rules of procedure do we allow the grant relevant issues for bail, the prosecution is now deprived of
of bail based on judicial notice of a doctor’s certification. In a fair opportunity to present any evidence that may rebut
doing so, we effectively suspend our rules on evidence by the findings of Dr. Gonzales or any other medical
doing away with cross-examination and authentication of documents presented by petitioner in this Court. Due
Dr. Gonzales’ findings on petitioner’s health in a hearing process requires that we remand this matter for a bail
whose main purpose is to determine whether no kind of hearing to verify Dr. Gonzales’ findings and to ensure that
alternative detention is possible. that is still the condition that prevails at present.
_______________ _______________
56 The enumeration of diseases on pages 307-308 of the ponencia is 58 A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, September 19, 1994, 236 SCRA 505 [Per
based on the certification of Dr. Gonzales. There was a hearing but for the Curiam, En Banc].
purpose of determining whether hospital arrest can continue. The hearing 59 Id., at pp. 521-522, citing 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Sec. 17, 48, King v.
was not for the purpose of determining whether bail should be granted on Gallun, 109 U.S. 99, 27 L. ed. 870, and 31 C.J.S., Evidence, Secs. 6-7, 823.
the basis of his medical condition.
57 Rollo, p. 373.


339 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 339
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) Premise: There are those whose continued incarceration
is clearly shown to be injurious to their health OR whose
lives are endangered due to incarceration.
That we make factual determinations ourselves to grant
Premise: Petitioner is suffering from some ailments.
provisional liberty to one who is obviously politically
Therefore: Petitioner should be released.
privileged without the benefit of the presentation of
There are various ways to see the fallacy of the
evidence by both the prosecution and the accused, without
argument.
the prosecution being granted the opportunity to cross-
It is true that it is the duty of courts to ensure that
examine the evidence, and without consideration of any
detention prisoners are humanely treated. Under A.M. No.
rebutting evidence that may have been presented should a
07-3-02-SC,61 judges of lower courts are mandated to
hearing be held, casts serious doubt on our neutrality and
conduct monthly jail visitations in order to “[e]nsure the
objectivity.
promotion and protection of the dignity and well-being”62 of
The better part of prudence is that we follow strictly our
detention prisoners. Detention prisoners may also be
well-entrenched, long-standing, and canonical procedures
released to a medical facility on humanitarian grounds “if
for bail. Doctrinally, the matter to determine is whether
their continuous confinement during the pendency of their
the evidence of guilt is strong. This is to be examined when
case would be injurious to their health or endanger their
a hearing is granted as a mandatory manner after a
life.”63
petition for bail is filed by the accused. The medical
In many instances, alternative detention — whether
condition of the accused, if any, should be pleaded and
temporary or permanent — is granted upon a clear
heard.
showing before the trial court or the Sandiganbayan that

the physical condition of the accused, as proven through
VI
evidence presented in open court, is absolutely requiring

medical attention that could not be accommodated within
Assuming without conceding that petitioner suffers from
the current custodial arrangements. Care should, however,
illnesses that require immediate medical attention, this
be taken that such alternative custodial arrangements do
court has not established clear guidelines for such releases.
not take place more than the time necessary to address the
The closest that the majority opinion reaches for a
medical condition of the accused. Likewise, the
standard is:
Sandiganbayan should ensure that alternative custodial
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the arrangements are not borne by the state and, therefore,
crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of should be sensitive to the possibility that these alternatives
the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown are not seen as a privilege given to the wealthy or powerful
to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, detainees.
denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not
serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during trial.60 _______________
(Emphasis in the original)
61 Re: Guidelines on the Jail Visitation and Inspection. New guidelines
are stated in OCA Circular No. 107-2013.
To see the logical fallacy of the argument we break it 62 A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC (2008), Sec. 1(3)
down to its premises: 63 De la Rama v. People’s Court, 77 Phil. 461, 465 (1946) [Per J. Feria,
En Banc].
_______________

60 Ponencia, p. 310.
341

340 VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 341
64 65
On July 9, 2014 and July 15, 2014, the government hospital, which the medical team may deem to have
Sandiganbayan already issued Resolutions allowing the appropriate, suitable and/or modern equipment or medical
accused to remain at the Philippine National Police apparatus and competent personnel to undertake the procedure/s,
General Hospital and continue medical examinations until ALL AT THE PERSONAL EXPENSE OF ACCUSED JUAN
further orders from the court, subject to reportorial PONCE ENRILE. Pending the completion of the aforesaid
requirements and at accused’s personal expense. In medical examination/s and/or procedure/s and submission of the
particular, the Resolution dated July 9, 2014 states: required report and recommendation, accused Juan Ponce Enrile
is allowed to remain at the Philippine National Police General
Pending receipt of [Dr. Jose C. Gonzales’s report], the Court Hospital subject to conditions earlier imposed by the Court in its
will hold in abeyance action on accused Enrile’s motion for Resolution dated July 9, 2014.
detention at the PNP General Hospital. However, he is allowed to SO ORDERED.67
remain thereat until further orders from this Court. The Director
or Administrator of PNP General Hospital is GRANTED
AUTHORITY to allow accused Enrile to access another medical These are standing orders of the Sandiganbayan that
facility outside Camp Crame only (1) in case of emergency or authorize accused to be brought to any hospital
necessity, and (2) the medical procedure required to be immediately if he exhibits symptoms that cannot be treated
administered on accused Enrile is not available at, or cannot be at the Philippine National Police General Hospital subject
provided for by the physicians of, the PNP General Hospital, ALL only to reportorial requirements to the court. In granting
AT THE PERSONAL EXPENSE OF ACCUSED ENRILE. bail to petitioner, we are, in effect, declaring that the
After completion of the medical treatment or procedure outside Sandiganbayan’s decisions in relation to its supervision of
Camp Crame, accused Enrile shall be returned forthwith to the the accused’s detention were tainted with grave abuse of
PNP General Hospital. The said director or administrator is discretion.
DIRECTED to submit a report to the Court on such visit/s However, these orders were not the subject of this
of accused Enrile to another medical facility on the day Petition for Certiorari.
following the said visit/s.66 (Emphasis in the original) To the Sandiganbayan, based upon the facts as
presented to it, accused does not seem to be suffering from
a unique debilitating disease whose treatment cannot be
The Resolution dated July 15, 2014 states: provided for by our detention facilities and temporary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Dr. Jose C. Gonzales,
hospital arrest in accordance with their order. How the
and/or any his duly authorized representative/s from the
majority arrived at a conclusion different from the
Philippine General Hospital, is DIRECTED to continue with the
Sandiganbayan has not been thoroughly explained.
medical examination of accused Juan Ponce Enrile and to submit
Neither did this issue become the subject of intense
a report and recommendation
discussion by the parties through their pleadings.
_______________
_______________
67 Petition for Certiorari, Annex P, pp. 2-3.
64 Petition for Certiorari, Annex O.
65 Petition for Certiorari, Annex P.
66 Petition for Certiorari, Annex O, p. 5.
343

342 VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 343
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) It is unclear whether this privilege would apply to all
those who have similar conditions and are also undergoing
trial for plunder. It is unclear whether petitioner’s
to the Court within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. The
incarceration aggravates his medical conditions or if his
necessary medical examination/s and/or procedure/s as
medical conditions are simply conditions which come with
determined the said doctor/s shall be undertaken at PGH or any
advanced age.
The majority has not set specific bases for finding that
the medical condition of petitioner entitles him to VII
treatment different from all those who are now under
detention and undergoing trial for plunder. There is no Neither is there clarity in the majority opinion as to the
showing as to how grave his conditions are in relation to conditions for this special kind of bail. Thus, the majority
the facilities that are made available to him. There is also asserts:
no showing as to whether any of his medical ailments is
actually aggravating in spite of the best care available. If It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to
his health is deteriorating, there is no showing that it is his Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be
detention that is the most significant factor or cause for properly addressed and better attended to by competent
such deterioration. physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in
Usually, when there is a medical emergency that would his adequate preparation of his defense but, more importantly,
make detention in the hospital necessary, courts do not will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial.70
grant bail. They merely modify the conditions for the

accused’s detention. There is now no clarity as to when
Before the ink used to write and print the majority
special bail based on medical conditions and modified
opinion and this dissent has dried, friends, family, and
arrest should be imposed.
colleagues of petitioner already strongly predict that he
Finally, there is no guidance as to whether this special
would report immediately for work. This strongly indicates
bail based on medical condition is applicable only to those
that the majority’s
of advanced age and whether that advanced age is beyond
90 or 91 years old. There is no guidance as to whether this
_______________
is applicable only to cases involving plunder. There is no
guidance in the majority’s opinion as to whether this is 69 Id., at p. 428; pp. 585-586, citing Release of Accused by Judge Muro
only applicable to the medical conditions or stature or titles in Non-Bailable Offense, 419 Phil. 567, 581; 367 SCRA 285, 299 (2001)
of petitioner. [Per Curiam, En Banc], People v. Gako, Jr., 401 Phil. 514, 541; 348 SCRA
The majority has perilously set an unstated if not
334, 352 (2000) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division], Pineda, Ernesto,
ambiguous standard for the special grant of bail on the
The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, p. 193 (2003), which in turn
ground of medical conditions.
cited De la Rama v. People’s Court, supra note 63, Archer’s case, 6 Gratt
Bail is not a matter of right merely for medical reasons.
705, Ex parte Smith, 2 Okla. Crim. Rep. 24, 99 Pfc. 893, and Max
In People v. Fitzgerald:68
Rothman, Burton Dunlop, and Pamela Entzel, Elders, Crime and The
Criminal Justice System, pp. 233-234 (2000).
_______________
70 Ponencia, p. 311.
68 536 Phil. 413; 505 SCRA 573 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First

Division].

345

344
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 345
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) inference as to the existence of very serious debilitating
illnesses may have been too speculative or premature.
Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner Significantly, there is no guidance to the
needing medical care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of Sandiganbayan as to whether bail then can be cancelled
illness is not a ground for bail. It may be that the trend now is for motu propio or upon motion. There is no guidance as to
courts to permit bail for prisoners who are seriously sick. There whether that motion to cancel bail should be filed before
may also be an existing proposition for the “selective the Sandiganbayan or before this court.
decarceration of older prisoners” based on findings that recidivism The crime charged in petitioner’s case is one where the
rates decrease as age increases.69 imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Constitution
and our rules require that bail can only be granted after
granting the prosecution the opportunity to prove that based on lawful causes nor does it prohibit the detention of
evidence of guilt is strong. The special grant of bail, due to any person accused of crimes. It only implies that any
medical conditions, is unique, extraordinary, and arrest or detention must be carried out in a dignified and
exceptional. To allow petitioner to go about his other duties humane manner.
would be to blatantly flaunt a violation of the provisions of
the Constitution and our rules. _______________
In other words, there is no rule on whether the grant of
provisional liberty on the basis of humanitarian amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following
considerations extends even after the medical emergency factors:
has passed. Again, a case of a decision especially tailored (a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
for petitioner. (b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
VIII (d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
There is no evidentiary basis for the determination of (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
P1,000,000.00 as the amount for bail. The original proposal (g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
of the member in charge was P100,000.00. This was (h) Forfeiture of other bail;
increased to P500,000.00 in its revised proposal circulated (i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when
on August 14, 2015. Then, upon the request of one member arrested; and
who voted with the majority, it was then increased to (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
P1,000,000.00. Excessive bail shall not be required.
The rules guide courts on what to consider when setting 72 In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil. 504, 545; 407 SCRA 10, 57
the amount of bail.71 The majority opinion is sparse on the (2003) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc], this court stated: “Although the
evidence it signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding
document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the
_______________ Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international

law and binding on the State.”
71 See Rev. Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 114, Sec. 9, which states: 73 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 1 states that “[a]ll
SEC. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines.—The judge who issued the human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable

347
346
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 347

The majority opinion cites Government of Hong Kong
considers for setting this particular amount. Again, the Special Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia, Jr.74 as basis
more prudent course of action would have been for the for the grant of bail on humanitarian reasons.75 However,
Sandiganbayan, not this court, to exercise its discretion in Government of Hong Kong does not apply to this case
setting the amount of bail. because the issue was on whether bail could apply to
IX extradition cases. This court stated that because of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose principles
There are no specific and binding international law are now embodied in the Constitution, bail applies to all
provisions that compel this court to release petitioner given instances where an accused is detained pending trial,
his medical condition. The Universal Declaration of Human including administrative proceedings such as extradition.
Rights, relied upon in the majority opinion, is a general This court, however, does not state that the Universal
declaration72 to uphold the value and dignity of every Declaration of Human Rights mandates that bail must be
person.73 It does not prohibit the arrest of any accused

granted in instances where the accused is of advanced age us to be nonchalant about the existence of other
and frail health. constitutional and statutory provisions and the norms in
Petitioner’s remedies under the Universal Declaration of our Rules of Court. The mere invocation of human rights
Human Rights that safeguard his fundamental right to does not mean that the Rule of Law is suspended. It is not
liberty are qualified by the Constitution. Article III, Section a shortcut to arrive at the conclusion or result that we
13 of the Constitution clearly states that bail is available to want. Rather, human rights are best entrenched with the
all persons before conviction “except those charged with Rule of Law. Suspending the applicability of clear legal
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of provisions upon the invocation of human rights compels
guilt is strong[.]” Even Article 29(2) of the Universal this court to do a more conscious and rigorous analysis of
Declaration of Human Rights, the same document used by how these provisions violate specific binding human rights
the majority opinion, provides that: norms.
The majority opinion fails in this respect.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall Liberty is indeed a cherished value. It is an intrinsic
be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely part of our humanity to fight for it and ensure that it
for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the allows all of us to lead the kind of lives that we will
rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just consider meaningful.
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in
a democratic society.
_______________
76 See Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v.
In any case, even this court in Government of Hong Kong
Olalia, Jr., 550 Phil. 63, 77; 521 SCRA 470, 488 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-
was wary to grant bail without evidence presented that the
Gutierrez, En Banc]. The dispositive portion reads: “WHEREFORE, we
accused was not a flight risk. For this reason, it remanded
DISMISS the petition. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to
determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of
_______________
‘clear and convincing evidence.’ If not, the trial court should order the
74 550 Phil. 63, 72; 521 SCRA 470, 482 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval- cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention; and thereafter,
conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch.”
Gutierrez, En Banc].
75 Ponencia, pp. 305-306.

349
348
VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 349
This applies to petitioner as accused. Yet it also applies
76 with equal force to all the individuals in our communities
the case to the trial court instead of applying the
and in this society.
provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Our collective liberty, the kind that ensures our
and categorically stating that based on these principles
individual and collective meaningful existence, is put at
alone, the accused was entitled to bail.
risk if justice is wanting. Special privileges may be granted
It is true that the Constitution is replete with provisions
only under clear, transparent, and reasoned circumstances.
on both the respect for human dignity and the protection of
Otherwise, we accept that there are just some among us
human rights. These rights are applicable to those who,
who are elite. Otherwise, we concede that there are those
during the dark days of Martial Law, were illegally
among us who are powerful and networked enough to enjoy
detained, tortured, and even involuntarily disappeared.
privileges not shared by all.
There is, of course, no reason for these rights and the
This dissent rages against such a premise. It is filled
invocation of human dignity not to be applicable to
with discomfort with the consequences of the majority’s
Senators of our Republic.
position. It cannot accept any form of impunity.
However, the mere invocation of the broadest concept of

human rights is not shibboleth. It should not be cause for
X (4) Illegal possession of 10 grams to less than 50 grams

of shabu;91
Plunder is not the only crime statutorily punished with
the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua or life _______________
imprisonment. Under the Revised Penal Code, the
following crimes, among others, carry this as maximum 82 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 294(2), as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659
penalty: (1993), Sec. 9.
(1) Parricide;77 83 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 297.
(2) Murder;78 84 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 266-A, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353
(3) Kidnapping and serious illegal detention;79 (1997), Sec. 2.
(4) Robbery with homicide;80 85 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 266-A(1)(d), as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353
(5) Robbery with rape;81 (1997), Sec. 2.
86 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 266-A(2), as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353
(1997), Sec. 2.
87 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 266-B(1), as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353
_______________
(1997), Sec. 2.
77 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 246. 88 Rep. Act No. 6539 (1972), Sec. 14, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659
78 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 248, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659 (1993), (1993), Sec. 20 and Rep. Act No. 9346 (2006), Sec. 1.
Sec. 6, and Rep. Act No. 9346 (2006), Sec. 1. 89 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 5.
79 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 267, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659 (1993), 90 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11, 1st par. (3)(4)(5)(7)(8).
Sec. 8, and Rep. Act No. 9346 (2006), Sec. 1. 91 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11, 2nd par. (1).
80 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 294(1), as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659
(1993), Sec. 9.
81 Id.
351

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 351
350

(5) Illegal possession of 5 grams to less than 10 grams of
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) heroin, cocaine, shabu, or ecstasy;92
(6) Child prostitution;93
(6) Robbery with serious physical injuries;82 (7) Child trafficking;94
(7) Attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide;83 (8) Forcing a street child or any child to beg or to use
(8) Rape;84 begging as a means of living;95
(9) Rape of children under 12 years old;85 (9) Forcing a street child or any child to be a conduit in
(10) Sexual assault;86 and drug trafficking or pushing;96
(11) Incestuous rape.87 (10) Forcing a street child or any child to commit any
illegal activities;97 and
Under special laws, the following crimes, among others, (11) Murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and
carry the maximum penalty of life imprisonment or serious physical injuries of a child under 12 years old.98
reclusion perpetua:
(1) Carnapping with homicide or rape;88 If we are to take judicial notice of anything, then it
(2) Sale of illegal drugs regardless of quantity and should be that there are those accused of murder,
purity;89 trafficking, sale of dangerous drugs, incestuous rape, rape
(3) Illegal possession of 10 grams or more of heroin, 10 of minors, multiple counts of rape, or even serious illegal
grams or more of cocaine, 50 grams or more of shabu, 500 detention who languish in overcrowded detention facilities
grams or more of marijuana, or 10 grams or more of all over our country. We know this because the members of
ecstasy;90 this court encounter them through cases appealed on a
daily basis. Many of them suffer from diseases that they
may have contracted because of the conditions of their jails.
But they and their families cannot afford hospitals better to conclude that the decision is the result of obvious
than what government can provide them. After all, they political accommodation rather than a judicious
remain in jail because they may not have the resources to consideration of the facts and the law. This case may
launch a full-scale legal offensive marked with the benefit one powerful public official at the cost of weakening
creativity of well-networked defense counsel. After all, our legal institutions. If it is pro hac vice, then it amounts
to selective justice. If it is meant to apply in a blanket
_______________ manner for all other detainees, then it will weaken the
administration of justice because the judicial standards are
92 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11, 2nd par. (2). not clear.
93 Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), Sec. 5.
94 Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), Sec. 7.
95 Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), Sec. 10(e)(1).
96 Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), Sec. 10(e)(2). 353
97 Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), Sec. 10(e)(3).
98 Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), Sec. 10. VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 353

Without further clarity, our signal to the various
352
divisions of the Sandiganbayan hearing these complex and
politically laden plunder cases can be misinterpreted.
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Rather than apply the Rule of Law without fear or favor,
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) the sitting justices will become more sensitive to the
demands of those who have political influence. After all, in
their minds, even if they do what is expected of them, this
they may have committed acts driven by the twin evils of
court may still declare that the Sandiganbayan gravely
greed or lust on one hand and poverty on the other hand.
abused its discretion.
For them, there are no special privileges. The
The granting of bail is a judicial function circumscribed
application of the law to them is often brute, banal, and
within the bounds of the Constitution. Our duty is to
canonical. Theirs is textbook equal treatment by courts.
ensure the realization of the Rule of Law even in difficult
Our precedents show that when there are far less
cases. This case does not really present any kind of legal
powerful, less fortunate, poorer accused, this court has had
complexity if we blind ourselves as to who is involved. It is
no difficulty denying a motion to fix bail or motion to set
complex only because it is political.
bail where the crime charged carries the imposable penalty
The grant of provisional liberty to petitioner without any
of reclusion perpetua. With less powerful accused, we have
determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong
had no difficulty reading the plain meaning of Article III,
violates the clear and unambiguous text of the
Section 13 of the Constitution. With those who are less
Constitution. It may be that, as citizens, we have our own
fortunate in life, there are no exceptions.
opinions on or predilections for how the balance of
Petitioner in this case is unbelievably more fortunate.
fundamental rights, liberties, and obligations should be. It
There is a right, just, and legal way to do things for the
may be that, as citizens, such opinions are founded on our
right, just, and legal result. In my view, it is not right, just,
wealth of knowledge and experience.
and legal to grant bail, even for P1,000,000.00, without
But, as members of this court, our duty is to enforce the
clearly articulating why the Sandiganbayan’s actions were
exact textual formulation of the fundamental document
arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical.
written and ratified by the sovereign. This fealty to the text
In truth, the Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with
of the Constitution will provide us with a stable anchor
law and with sufficient compassion. It did not gravely
despite the potential political controversies that swirl over
abuse its discretion. Thus, this Petition should be
the legal questions that we need to decide. It is also this
dismissed.
fealty to the text of the Constitution that gives this court

the legitimacy as the final bastion and the ultimate
XI
sentinel of the Rule of Law.

As the apex of the judiciary, the very sentinels of the
Those that read a decision which does not fully respond
Rule of Law, the court from whom all other courts — like
to the legal issues outlined in this dissent may be tempted
the Sandiganbayan — should find inspiration and courage, ——o0o——

we should apply the law squarely and without fear or favor.
We should have collectively carried the burden of doing
justice properly and denied this Petition.

354 © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Indeed, mercy and compassion temper justice. However,

mercy and compassion should never replace justice. There
is injustice when we, as the court of last resort,
conveniently rid ourselves of the burden of enforcing the
Rule of Law by neglecting to do the kind of rigorous,
deliberate, and conscious analysis of the issues raised by
the parties. There is injustice when we justify the result we
want with ambiguous and unclear standards.
Compassion as an excuse for injustice not only fails us
as justices of this court. It also fails us in our own
humanity.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the Petition. The
Motion to Fix Bail should be treated by the Sandiganbayan
as a petition for bail under Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules
of Court.
Petition granted, resolutions of Sandiganbayan (Third

Division) annulled and set aside.
Notes.—After a judgment of conviction has been

rendered by the trial court and cancellation of the bail bond
of the accused, his appropriate remedy against the court’s
order cancelling his bond is by filing with the Court of
Appeals a motion to review the said order in the same
regular appeal proceedings, as an incident of his appeal —
the filing of a separate petition via a special civil action or
special proceeding questioning such adverse order before
the appellate court is proscribed. (Chua vs. Court of
Appeals, 520 SCRA 729 [2007])
Under the present rule, the grant of bail is a matter of
discretion upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; The allowance of bail pending appeal should
be exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and
only for strong reasons, considering that the accused has
been in fact convicted by the trial court. (Qui vs. People,
682 SCRA 94 [2012])


4 Enrile Vs Sandiganbayan

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

4 Enrile Vs Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 767 Copy

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 283

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/70

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/70

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 287

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/70

Estelito P. Mendoza, Susan A. Mendoza, Lorenzo G.

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 293 Antecedents

x x x [F]or purposes of bail, the presence of mitigating

_______________ 16 Id., at pp. 16-19.

Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)

18 Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/70

(4) Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome (ACOS) and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/70

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/70

313 corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. —

Reyes, J., On Sick Leave.

not shedding their neutrality and impartiality. It is not the

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 317

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/70

3 Ponencia, p. 294. 11 Petition for Certiorari, Annex L.

ordinarily understood as two different concepts: (1) bail as

fundamentally to determine whether the evidence of guilt

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

_______________ “1. In all cases, whether bail is a

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/70

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the present charge of plunder, petitioner now insists

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/70

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/70

The exception to, or exclusion from, the right (“shall

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/70

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, while admitting

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/70

339 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

_______________ Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international

VOL. 767, AUGUST 18, 2015 347

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/70

X (4) Illegal possession of 10 grams to less than 50 grams

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the Sandiganbayan — should find inspiration and courage, ——o0o——

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Indeed, mercy and compassion temper justice. However,

Petition granted, resolutions of Sandiganbayan (Third

Notes.—After a judgment of conviction has been

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 69/70 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754501b00e9e82155c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 70/70

You might also like