G.R. No. 213847 - Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213847)

Sandiganbayan’s reasoning for denying bail

The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Fix Bail primarily as premature because it had not made an anterior determination that the prosecution’s evidence was not strong. The court emphasized that when an offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua the accused may demand bail as a matter of right only after the prosecution has presented its evidence and the court has determined that evidence of guilt is not strong. The Sandiganbayan also stated that mitigating circumstances are not considered in determining bail and that age and physical condition are factors to be weighed only after the threshold inquiry on the strength of evidence.

Constitutional and statutory bail framework

Under the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 13) and Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is provisional liberty by bail before conviction, except where the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua (or death/life imprisonment) and evidence of guilt is strong. Rule 114 distinguishes bail as (a) a matter of right (e.g., for courts without jurisdiction over capital offenses, or before conviction for non‑capital offenses), and (b) discretionary (e.g., after conviction by RTC of certain offenses). Section 7 of Rule 114 makes clear that no person charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shall be admitted to bail if evidence of guilt is strong, and jurisprudence requires a hearing with notice to the prosecution before such discretionary bail may be granted.

Hearing requirement and standard for “evidence of guilt is strong”

When bail is potentially excluded by Rule 114, the trial court must conduct a hearing (which may be summary) to ascertain whether evidence of guilt is strong; the prosecution must be notified and afforded opportunity to present evidence. The inquiry is limited to assessing the weight of the prosecution’s evidence for bail purposes—not to try the merits—and the court’s assessment should be based on the prosecution’s summary presentation and subject to cross‑examination and rebuttal where appropriate. Established guidelines require consideration of enumerated factors (nature of offense, character of accused, weight of evidence, probability of appearance, age and health, etc.) in fixing bail.

Supreme Court majority’s rationale for granting certiorari and bail

The Court granted the petition for certiorari, finding grave abuse of discretion in the Sandiganbayan’s denial of Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail. The majority emphasized bail’s primary objective—assuring the accused’s appearance at trial while protecting presumption of innocence and due process. Applying the constitutional regime and humanitarian considerations, the majority accepted that Enrile’s advanced age, immediate voluntary surrender, longstanding public standing, and the detailed medical evidence presented indicated a low flight risk and significant health vulnerabilities that the PNP General Hospital might not adequately manage. Balancing the State’s interest in prosecution with Enrile’s liberty and health, the Court ordered provisional release upon posting of a P1,000,000 cash bond.

Medical evidence and humanitarian considerations relied upon by the majority

The majority relied heavily on medical testimony and certifications (notably Dr. Jose C. Gonzales, PGH Director) describing multiple, potentially life‑threatening conditions: chronic hypertension with labile control, diffuse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (including cerebrovascular disease and heavy coronary calcifications), atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, asthma‑COPD overlap, ophthalmologic conditions, diabetes, dyslipidemia, gait/balance disorder, gastrointestinal bleeding history, and benign prostatic hypertrophy. The PGH opinion, and testimony that the PNP General Hospital lacked sufficient facilities for emergencies, formed the humanitarian basis for granting provisional liberty to allow proper treatment and enable Enrile to prepare his defense—an invocation of due process and dignity obligations including international human rights sensibilities cited by the majority.

Dissenting opinion — procedural and substantive objections

The principal dissent (Justice Leonen) objected to the majority’s disposition on several grounds: (1) the Sandiganbayan’s denial for prematurity followed canonized constitutional and Rule 114 procedures and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion; (2) Enrile had not originally sought bail on humanitarian grounds before the Sandiganbayan, and the majority’s reliance on such grounds amounted to granting relief on a basis not pleaded at trial; (3) the Court improperly took judicial notice of a doctor’s certification and effectively suspended ordinary rules of evidence by deciding factual medical issues without full adversarial testing (cross‑examination and possible rebuttal by the prosecution); (4) there is no clear statutory or doctrinal framework for humanitarian bail releases in cases punishable by reclusion perpetua, creating risks of selective or unequal application; and (5) ordering release without mandating a proper hearing and without clear standards undermines predictability and equal treatment under the law.

D

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 213847)

Case Caption and Disposition

Supreme Court En Banc decision rendered August 18, 2015 in G.R. No. 213847.
Ponente: Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (majority opinion).
Judgment: Petition for certiorari granted; Sandiganbayan (Third Division) resolutions dated July 14, 2014 and August 8, 2014 in Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238 annulled and set aside.
Relief ordered: Provisional release of petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile upon posting of a cash bond of P1,000,000.00 in the Sandiganbayan; immediate release unless detained for other lawful cause.
Vote and concurrences/dissent: Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Perez, and Mendoza, JJ., concur with the result; Peralta, J., concurs for humanitarian reasons; Del Castillo, J., concurs in the result on humanitarian grounds; Chief Justice Sereno, Carpio and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., join the dissent of J. Leonen; Leonen, J., dissents in a separate opinion. Jardeleza, J., did not take part; Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave; Reyes, J., on sick leave.

Antecedent Facts and Indictment

On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman charged Juan Ponce Enrile and several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan, alleging diversion and misuse of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) appropriations.
The charge rests on the Anti-Plunder Law (R.A. No. 7080, as amended) and asserts accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth aggregating at least P50,000,000.00.
Enrile filed an Omnibus Motion (June 10, 2014) and a Supplemental Opposition (June 16, 2014), praying, among other things, for the right to post bail should probable cause be found.
The prosecution filed a Consolidated Opposition to Enrile’s motions.

Proceedings in the Sandiganbayan (pre-Supreme Court relief)

July 3, 2014 Sandiganbayan resolution:
- Denied Enrile’s Omnibus Motion as premature because he had not voluntarily surrendered or been placed under law custody at that time.
- Ordered Enrile’s arrest.
July 3, 2014: On issuance of the arrest warrant, Enrile voluntarily surrendered to CIDG and was confined at PNP General Hospital after medical examination.
July 7, 2014: Enrile filed (a) Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital, and (b) Motion to Fix Bail (both dated July 7, 2014); both were heard July 8, 2014.
July 9, 2014: Sandiganbayan issued an order allowing Enrile to remain at PNP General Hospital for medical examination until further orders.
July 14, 2014 Sandiganbayan resolution (first assailed resolution):
- Denied Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail for lack of merit and as premature.
- Core reasoning: only after prosecution presents evidence and court determines that evidence of guilt is not strong can accused demand bail as matter of right; no such determination had been made; Enrile had not filed an application for bail in the required format; presence of mitigating circumstances (age, voluntary surrender) is not considered for purposes of bail; the court cannot fix bail without an anterior showing that evidence of guilt is not strong.
- Sandiganbayan ordered Enrile’s arrest to be carried into effect per its earlier resolution.
August 8, 2014 Sandiganbayan resolution:
- Denied Enrile’s Motion for Reconsideration of the July 14, 2014 resolution.

Motions, Pleadings and Positions of the Parties

Petitioner’s principal contentions (in petition for certiorari and earlier motions):
- Before judgment of conviction, Enrile is bailable as a matter of right except where the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt is strong.
- It was the prosecution’s duty and burden to show clearly and conclusively that Enrile falls within the exception (i.e., that he is punishable by reclusion perpetua and that evidence of guilt is strong).
- The prosecution failed to establish that Enrile is punishable by reclusion perpetua because two mitigating circumstances (his age — over 70 — and his voluntary surrender) would reduce the imposable penalty to reclusion temporal.
- The prosecution failed to show that evidence of Enrile’s guilt is strong.
- Enrile is not a flight risk given his age (over 90 at the time of proceedings as later referenced in pleadings), fragile medical condition, voluntary surrender, social and political standing, and prior history of complying with legal process.
Ombudsman / Prosecution position (as presented in the record and Comment):
- Enrile’s right to bail is discretionary because he is charged with a capital offense (or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua).
- A mandatory bail hearing is required to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong; entitlement to bail must consider the imposable penalty as provided by law regardless of attendant circumstances such as age or voluntary surrender.
- Presence or absence of mitigating circumstances is not relevant for purposes of determining the maximum penalty at the bail stage.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail (July 14, 2014) and Motion for Reconsideration (August 8, 2014).
Whether Enrile was entitled to provisional release on bail before trial in light of:
- Constitutional provision on bail (Article III, Section 13) and Rule 114 of the Rules of Court (Section 7 and related Sections);
- The existence and weight of the prosecution’s evidence (whether it is “strong”);
- The asserted mitigating circumstances (advanced age and voluntary surrender);
- Enrile’s medical condition and the adequacy of his detention at PNP General Hospital; and
- Applicable jurisprudence on mandatory bail hearings, summary hearings, and humanitarian considerations.

Governing Legal Principles Articulated by the Court (Majority)

Presumption of innocence and due process:
- The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty; the constitutional right to bail flows from this presumption and aims to protect the accused’s provisional liberty pending trial.
Purpose of bail:
- Bail’s primary objective is to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial; the amount of bail must be reasonably calculated to secure presence but not be excessive.
Bail as matter of right versus discretionary admission:
- Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution: All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be bailable before conviction.
- Rule 114 of the Rules of Court (as amended) codifies the constitutional rule: Section 4 — bail a matter of right (subject to exceptions); Section 5 — bail discretionary upon conviction in certain circumstances; Section 7 — no bail for capital offense or offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is strong.
Mandatory hearing in cases of discretionary bail:
- In cases where bail is discretionary (i.e., offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment), a hearing with notice to the prosecution is mandatory to ascertain whether the evidence of guilt is strong; such hearing may be summary in nature and should allow prosecution to present its evidence and be heard.
- Judicial discretion to weigh evidence of guilt must be exercised after the hearing; the prosecution is entitled to due process and to be consulted and heard.
Guidelines for bail consideration and summary hearing:
- The trial court must notify the prosecutor of the hearing or require submission of recommendation; where bail is discretionary the court must conduct a hearing, decide whether the guilt is strong based on the prosecution’s summary of evidence, and if guilt is not strong, discharge the accused on bail upon approval of bond.
Humanitarian and medical considerations:
- The Court recognizes that exceptional humanitarian circumstances, including grave ill health and advanced age that make continued detention injurious to life or health, may justify provisional liberty irrespective of the merits of the charge, so long as the purpose of bail — securing the accused’s appearance at trial — is preserved.
- The State’s constitutional commitment to respect human dignity and human rights and international commitments (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights) inform a responsibility to provide remedies to safeguard liberty, including bail, where detention imperils health or life.

Majority’s Application of Principles to the Case (Findings)

On the procedural prematurity argument:
- The Sandiganbayan’s initial refusal to fix bail on July 14, 2014 was premised on prematurity because a determination that evidence of guilt is not strong had not been made; the Court nonetheless found the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in the to