Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Tan 201117748
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 213847
Date of Promulgation: August 18, 2015
Ponente: Bersamin, J
Petition: Certiorari
Petitioner: Juan Ponce Enrile
Respondents: Sandiganbayan (Third Division), and People of the Philippines
Facts:
On June 5, 2014 Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman with
plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his purported involvement in the diversion and
misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The case is a
petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to fix bail
and Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds: (a) The prosecution failed to show
conclusively that Enrile, if ever convicted, is punishable by reclusion perpetua; (b) The
prosecution failed to show that evidence of Enrile’s guilt is strong; (c) Enrile is not a flight risk.
Issue:
Whether or not Enrile can bail YES
Ruling:
1. The purpose of the bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial.
2. It is the Philippine’s responsibility in the international community under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights “….of protecting and promoting the right of every person
to liberty and due process…under the obligation to make available to every person under
detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These
remedies include the right to be admitted to bail”.
3. Enrile is not a flight risk because of his social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged in court.
4. The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health is a compelling justification for his
admission to bail. (Chronic hypertension, diffuse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,
Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmia, etc.)
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the crime charged is plunder and the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The grant of bail is a special accommodation for
the petitioner.
The prosecution should have been given the opportunity to rebut the allegation that
petitioner suffers from medical conditions.
The invocation of a general human rights principle does not provide clear legal basis for
the grant of bail on humanitarian grounds. It is neither presently provided in our Rules of
Court nor found in any statue or provision of the Constitution. This sets a dangerous
precedent for the granting of bail on the basis of humanitarian conditions, which is
determined by the personal discretion of the trial judge.
The grant of provisional liberty to petitioner without any determination of whether the
evidence of guilt is strong violates the clear and unambiguous text of the constitution.