HELD: Petition for certiorari meritorious.

Sandiganbayan ignored objective of

bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during trial and unwarrantedly
disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of
Enrile.
RATIO:
1. Bail protects the right of the accused to due process and to be
presumed innocent.
Purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial.
Amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused
when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to
fulfil this purpose.
Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accuseds
interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the societys
interest in assuring the accuseds presence at trial.
2. Bail may be granted as a matter of right of of discretion.
Right to bail is expressly afforded by Sec. 13, Art. III (Bill of Rights).
This constitutional provision is repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of Rules of
Court.
Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetual 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 evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
the criminal prosecution.
Gen. Rule- Any person, before being convicted of any criminal offence, shall
be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense
punishable with reclusion perpetual or life imprisonment, and the evidence of
his guilt is strong.
Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to
bail shall be recognized.

ENRILE vs. Sandiganbayan and People

G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
NATURE: Petition for Certiorari
FACTS:
1. Ombudsman charged Enrile and others with Plunder on the basis of
involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under PDAF.
Enrile prayed in his Omnibus Motion to be allowed to post bail should
probable cause be found against him.
2. Sandiganbayan denied Enriles Motion, on the ground of prematurity
since he had not yet then voluntarily surrendered or been places under
the custody of the law. Sandiganbayan ordered his arrest.
3. On the same day the warrant for his arrest was issued, Enrile voluntarily
surrendered to Dir. Magalong of CIDG and was confined at PNP Gen.
Hospital.
4. Enrile then filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP Gen. Hospital and
Motion to Fix Bail arguing that (a) the prosecution had not yet established
that the evidence of his guilt was strong, (b) the penalty as to him would
only be reclusion temporal and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his age
and physical condition must be considered.
5. Sandiganbayan= Denied the Motion to Fix Bail on grounds that:
a. It is only after prosecutions presentation of evidence and Court
determines that evidence of guilt is not strong, can he demand bail as a
matter of right.
b. Argument that crime is not punishable by reclusion perpetual has
no merit, because Enrile anchored claim on Sec. 2 RA 7080 (that he is over
70 years old and that he voluntarily surrendered). Presence of mitigating
circumstances will only be appreciated in the imposition of proper penalty
after trial.
c. It is premature for the Court to fix bail without an anterior showing
that the evidence of guilt against Enrile is not strong.
6. Sandiganbayan= Denied Enriles MR. Hence, petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: WON Enrile may be granted bail? YES.

a. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or

require him to submit his recommendation (Sec. 18 Rule 114)
b. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the
application for bail regardless of whether or not prosecution refused to
present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the
purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (Sec. 7& 8,
Rule 114)
c. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the
summary evidence of the prosecution;
d. If the evidence of the accused is not strong, discharge the
accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Sec. 19 Rule 114). Otherwise
petition should be denied.

4. Enriles poor health justifies his admission to bail.

The Court is further mindful of the Philippines responsibility in the
international community arising from the national commitment under the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The national commitment to uphold the fundamental 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 extradites upon
a clear and convincing showing:
(1) that the detainee will not be flight risk or a danger to the community
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances
SC=Enriles social and political standing and his having immediately
surrendered to the authorities indicate that the risk of his fought is highly
unlikely. His personal disposition demonstrated his utter respect for legal
processed of this country. With his solid reputation in both his public and his
private lives, his long years of public service and historys judgment of him
being at stake, he should be granted bail.

All criminal cases within MeTC, MTC, MTC in Cities or MCTC are bailable.
Likewise, bail is a matter of right prior to conviction by RTC for any offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetual, or life imprisonment or even riot
to conviction when evidence of guilt is not strong.
Granting of Bail is Discretionary:
1. upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
2. if RTC has imposed penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years, provided
none of the circumstances under par. 3 Sec. 5 Rule 114 is present, as
follows:
a. he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
b. he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification
c. he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;
d. the circumstance of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
e. there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal
3. Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life
imprisonment, or reclusion perpetual is subject to judicial discretion.
For purposes of bail, determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is
strong lies within the discretion of the trial court.
Bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter of discretion on the part of
the trial court unless there has been a hearing with notice to the Prosecution.
The hearing, which may be either summary or otherwise, in the discretion of
the court, should primarily determine whether or not the evidence of guit
against the accused is strong.
The trial judge is expected to comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes
vs. Catral.

provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his

health or to endanger his life.
Court balances the scales of justice by protecting the interest of the People
through ensuring his personal appearance at the trial, and at the same time
realising for him the guarantees of due process as well as to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty.

His currently fragile state of he alt presents another compelling justification

for his admission to bail. Enriles advanced age and ill health required special
medical attention.
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime
charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge,