JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015
BERSAMIN, J.:
DISCUSSION:
1. Bail protects the right of the accused to due process and to be presumed
innocent
{
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is
rooted in the guarantee of due process, and is safeguarded by the
constitutional right to be released on bail, and further binds the court to
wait until after trial to impose any punishment on the accused.
{
It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to
prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at
the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court.
{
The 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 fulfill this purpose.
{
Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to
accommodate both the accused’s interest in his provisional liberty before or
during the trial, and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence
at trial.
{
2. Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion
i)
To all persons before conviction
The right to bail is expressly afforded by Section 13, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, viz.:
x x x All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of
guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties,
or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
GR: The general rule is, therefore, that any person, before being convicted
of any criminal offense, shall be bailable,
Ø
from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is
detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim the guarantee
of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights, and he retains his right
to bail
E: unless
i)
he is charged with a capital offense, or
ii)
with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua 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.27
As a result, all criminal cases
1.
within the competence of the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal
Circuit Trial Court are bailable as
matter of right because these courts have no jurisdiction to try capital
offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
2.
Likewise, bail is a matter of right
i)
prior to conviction by the RTC for any offense, not
punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, or
ii)
even prior to conviction for an offense punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong.
BAIL; DISCRETIONARY:
On the other hand, the granting of bail is discretionary:
1)
upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
or
2)
if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is
present, as follows:
a)
That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
b)
That he has previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
c)
That he committed the offense while under probation,
parole, or conditional pardon;
d)
Flight risk: That the circumstances of his case
indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
e)
That 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 is subject to judicial discretion
For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of whether or not
evidence of guilt is strong IN CRIMINAL CASES involving capital offenses, or
offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within
the discretion of the trial court. But, as the Court has held in Concerned Citizens v. Elma , "such
discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree
of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted
provisional liberty." It is axiomatic, therefore, that 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 indispensability
of the hearing with notice has been aptly explained in Aguirre v. Belmonte, viz:
xxx a hearing is mandatory before bail can be granted to an accused who
is charged with a capital offense, in this wise: To appreciate the strength or
weakness of the evidence of guilt, the prosecution must be consulted or heard.
It is equally entitled as the accused to due process.
Certain guidelines in the fixing
of a bailbond call for the presentation of evidence and reasonable opportunity
for the prosecution to refute it. Among them are the (FREN-BP)
ü
nature and circumstances of the crime,
ü
character and reputation
of the accused,
ü
the weight of the evidence against him,
ü
the probability
of the accused appearing at the trial,
ü
whether or not the accused is a fugitive from justice, and
ü
whether or not the accused is under bond in other cases. (Section 6, Rule
114, Rules of Court)
It is highly doubtful if the trial court can appreciate these guidelines
in an ex-parte determination where the Fiscal is neither present nor heard.
Summary Hearing
The hearing, which may be either
summary or otherwise, in the discretion of the court, should primarily
determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. For this purpose, a summary hearing means:
x x x such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing
which is merely to determine the weight
of evidence for purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court does not sit
to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought
to be allowed to the evidence for or against the accused, nor will it speculate
on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be therein offered
or admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of the court
which may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to
substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the examination
and cross examination.
Guidelines In
resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged with a capital offense,
or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial
judge is expected to comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. Catral, to wit:
1)
In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or
of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for
bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of
the Rules of Court, as amended);
2)
Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecution refuses 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; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
3)
Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
4)
If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond (Section 19, supra)
Otherwise petition should be denied.
RULING:
Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail
We first note that Enrile has averred in his Motion to Fix Bail the
presence of two mitigating circumstances that should be appreciated in his
favor, namely:
i)
that he was already over 70 years at the time of
the alleged commission of the offense, and
Enrile’s averment has been mainly uncontested by the Prosecution, whose
Opposition to the Motion to Fix Bail has only argued that –
8. As regards the assertion that the maximum possible penalty that might
be imposed upon Enrile is only reclusion temporal due to the presence of two
mitigating circumstances, suffice it to state that the presence or absence of
mitigating circumstances is also not consideration that the Constitution deemed
worthy. The relevant clause in Section 13 is "charged with an offense punishable
by." It is, therefore, the maximum penalty provided by the offense that
has bearing and not the possibility of mitigating circumstances being
appreciated in the accused’s favour.
Yet, we do not determine now the question of whether or not Enrile’s
averment on the presence of the two mitigating circumstances could entitle him
to bail despite the crime alleged
against him being punishable with reclusion
perpetua, simply because the determination, being primarily factual in
context, is ideally to be made by the trial court.
Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for certiorari, the Court
is guided by the earlier mentioned principal purpose of bail, which is to
guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required
by the court. 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
to:
x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and
dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II
of our Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." The
Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the
right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained
or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to
decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release
if justified. In other words, the Philippine authorities are under 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.
This 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 extraditees upon
a clear and convincing showing:
1)
that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger
to the community; and
Factors
{
Social and Political Standing: In our view, his
social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the
authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his
flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal
disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise,
has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of this country.
{
Previously granted bail: We also do not ignore
that at an earlier time many years ago when he had been charged with rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar
personal disposition of respect for the legal processes, and was granted bail
during the pendency of his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk.
{
Public service: With his solid reputation in both
his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and
history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.
{
Medical Condition: Enrile was also suffering from
different medical conditions which could pose significant risks to the life of
Enrile. There is no question at all that Enrile’s 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, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown
to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life.
No comments:
Post a Comment