Enrile v. Sandiganbayan

On June 5, 2014, the Ombudsman charged Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan over the alleged diversion of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) appropriations. His omnibus motion asking to post bail if probable cause were found was denied as premature, because he was not yet in custody, and a warrant issued on July 3, 2014. He surrendered the same day to the CIDG at Camp Crame and was confined at the PNP General Hospital. In a Motion to Fix Bail, he argued that the prosecution had not shown that the evidence of his guilt was strong; that two mitigating circumstances, his being over 70 at the time of the offense and his voluntary surrender, would lower the penalty to reclusion temporal; and that his age and health meant he was not a flight risk. On July 14, 2014 the Sandiganbayan denied the motion. It held that bail could be fixed only after a hearing showed that the evidence of guilt was not strong, that he had not even applied for bail, and that mitigating circumstances are not considered for purposes of bail. His motion for reconsideration was denied on August 8, 2014, and he filed a Rule 65 petition. The Ombudsman answered that bail was discretionary because plunder is punishable by reclusion perpetua, and that a hearing on the strength of the evidence was mandatory.

1. 1Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Enrile's Motion to Fix Bail.
2. 2Whether an accused charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua may be admitted to bail, without a hearing on the strength of the evidence, because of his age and fragile health.

Petition granted; Enrile ordered provisionally released on a cash bond of P1,000,000 (Bersamin, J., en banc). Bail protects the presumption of innocence and due process, and its purpose is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial, not to prevent further crimes. Under Article III, Section 13 and Rule 114, Section 7, bail is a matter of right before conviction unless the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. Whether the evidence is strong lies in the trial court's discretion, exercised only after a hearing with notice to the prosecution, following the Cortes v. Catral guidelines. The Court expressly did not decide whether the two mitigating circumstances could entitle Enrile to bail despite the charge being punishable by reclusion perpetua, since that determination is primarily factual and belongs to the trial court. It granted the petition on other grounds. Guided by the purpose of bail and the country's commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia had supported bail even for extraditees, the Court found flight highly unlikely. It pointed to his social and political standing, his immediate surrender, and his record of respecting legal processes when he was earlier charged with rebellion with murder and granted bail. His fragile health was a further compelling reason. The PGH director testified that he was a geriatric patient with chronic hypertension, diffuse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, arrhythmia and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome, conditions that could pose significant risks to his life. The PNP General Hospital's own physicians said they were not comfortable with his continued confinement there. Citing Dela Rama v. People's Court, the Court held that bail, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge where continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to health or to endanger life. Waiting for trial to end before meaningfully considering bail would defeat its purpose, and courts may act on circumstances admitted by the prosecution or subject to judicial notice. The Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by ignoring the objective of bail and disregarding his fragile health and advanced age. Peralta, J. concurred for humanitarian reasons and Del Castillo, J. concurred in the result on humanitarian grounds, without separate opinions.