Case Summary (G.R. No. 207145)
Key Dates
• June 5, 2014 – Ombudsman files plunder complaint in Sandiganbayan
• July 14, 2014 – Sandiganbayan denies Motion to Fix Bail
• August 8, 2014 – Sandiganbayan denies Motion for Reconsideration of bail denial
• August 18, 2015 – Supreme Court renders decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Art. III, Sec. 13 (Bail) and Sec. 14(2) (Presumption of Innocence)
• Republic Act No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law)
• Rule 114, Rules of Court (Bail provisions)
Procedural History and Motions
Enrile was arrested pursuant to plunder charges and voluntarily surrendered to the CIDG on July 3, 2014. On July 7 he filed (a) a Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital and (b) a Motion to Fix Bail, arguing lack of strong evidence, the imposition of only reclusion temporal due to mitigating circumstances (age over 70 and voluntary surrender), and absence of flight risk. The Sandiganbayan heard both motions on July 8 and, on July 14, 2014, issued a resolution denying bail as premature because no “strong evidence” determination had been made and no formal bail hearing conducted. A Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied on August 8, 2014.
Constitutional Right to Bail and Presumption of Innocence
Under the 1987 Constitution, all persons are presumed innocent (Art. III, Sec. 14[2]) and entitled to bail before conviction, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong (Art. III, Sec. 13). Bail safeguards due process and guarantees an accused’s appearance at trial, not to prevent further offenses.
Statutory and Rules-Based Framework for Bail
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court mirrors the Constitution:
• Sec. 4 – Bail is a matter of right before conviction for non-capital offenses or those not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
• Sec. 5 – Bail is discretionary after conviction for non-capital offenses.
• Sec. 7 – No bail when charged with capital offense or offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and evidence of guilt is strong.
Sec. 9 lists factors for fixing bail (e.g., financial ability, nature of the offense, weight of evidence, flight risk).
Mandatory Bail Hearing in Capital or Reclusion Perpetua Cases
Precedents (Herras Teehankee, Ocampo v. Bernabe, Cortes v. Catral) require a summary hearing with notice to the prosecution to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong before granting bail in capital or reclusion perpetua cases. Failure to hold such hearing constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Supreme Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
The Supreme Court granted Enrile’s petition, finding that the Sandiganbayan ignored bail’s primary objective—to secure appearance at trial—and failed to consider:
- Enrile’s advanced age (90+), frail health (multiple serious conditions documented by PGH), and voluntary surrender, mitigating flight risk.
- His demonstrable respect for legal process and long public service, further reducing flight probability.
- Human rights obligations under the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to uphold human dignity and liberty, including provisional medical treatment.
- Precedent allowing bail for detainees whose continued confinement endangers life or health (e.g., Dela Rama v. People’s Court).
Holding and Disposition
The Court held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused discretion by denying bail without properly weighing Enrile’s health and
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207145)
Facts and Antecedents
- On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder charges against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile before the Sandiganbayan, based on alleged misuse of Priority Development Assistance Fund appropriations.
- Enrile filed an Omnibus Motion (June 10) and Supplemental Opposition (June 16) seeking pretrial bail in the event probable cause was found.
- On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied his Omnibus Motion as premature (no arrest yet) and issued an arrest warrant.
- Enrile voluntarily surrendered the same day, was medically examined, and confined at the PNP General Hospital.
- On July 7, 2014, he filed a Motion for Detention at the PNP Hospital and a Motion to Fix Bail, arguing:
- Prosecution’s evidence was not strong.
- Plunder as charged carried only reclusion temporal given his age and voluntary surrender.
- He was not a flight risk due to age and health.
- The Sandiganbayan heard these motions on July 8 and, by resolution dated July 14, denied bail as premature and held that bail under R.A. 7080 could only be fixed after evidence showed guilt was not strong.
- On August 8, 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied his motion for reconsideration of the July 14 resolution.
- Enrile then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue
- Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Senator Enrile’s pretrial motion to fix bail and his motion for reconsideration, in violation of his constitutional right to bail.
Supreme Court Ruling (Majority)
- The petition for certiorari is meritorious; the writ is GRANTED.
- Bail is rooted in the presumption of innocence and due process; it ensures the accused’s appearance at trial rather than punishing or incapacitating him pretrial.
- Under the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 13) and Rule 114, bail is a matter of:
- Right, for all persons before conviction except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong; or
- Discretion, after conviction for noncapital offenses carrying more than six years’ imprisonment under certain conditions.
- For capital or reclusion perpetua offenses, bail m