Title
Supreme Court
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan, 3rd Division
Case
G.R. No. 213847
Decision Date
Jul 12, 2016
A 91-year-old former senator sought bail due to advanced age and frail health; the Supreme Court granted release, citing humanitarian grounds and low flight risk, despite charges of plunder punishable by life imprisonment.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 213847)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Underlying criminal case
    • On June 5, 2014, former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with plunder (Republic Act No. 7080) before the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) under Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238.
    • A warrant of arrest issued July 3, 2014; Enrile voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the PNP General Hospital due to claimed health issues.
  • Motions before the Sandiganbayan
    • June 10, 2014 – Enrile filed an Omnibus Motion for Bail, citing advanced age and frail health; submitted medical certificates.
    • July 7, 2014 – He filed a Motion to Fix Bail, arguing age and voluntary surrender as mitigating, and low flight risk.
    • July 9, 2014 – Sandiganbayan granted hospital detention but denied the bail motion as premature; People of the Philippines opposed both motions.
  • Supreme Court proceedings
    • August 18, 2015 – En Banc granted Enrile’s petition for certiorari, annulled Sandiganbayan resolutions of July 14 and August 8, 2014, set bail at ₱1,000,000, and ordered immediate release.
    • People filed a Motion for Reconsideration, challenging the grant of bail on constitutional and procedural grounds.
    • July 12, 2016 – En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration, affirming the August 2015 decision.

Issues:

  • Constitutional and statutory basis for bail
    • Whether a person charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua can be granted bail based on health and low flight risk.
    • Whether the evidence of guilt was “strong” (thus barring bail under Art. III, Sec. 13, 1987 Constitution).
  • Procedural due process
    • Whether the People were afforded a fair opportunity to contest Enrile’s health‐based grounds for bail.
    • Whether the Supreme Court improperly relied on grounds not raised or litigated before the Sandiganbayan.
  • Equal protection
    • Whether Enrile’s release constituted undue favoritism or preferential treatment inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.