17MAY engrjhez

Share this:

En Banc

[BERSAMIN, J.]

FACTS: The O ce of the Ombudsman charged Enrile, 90 years of age, and several
others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported
involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Upon voluntary surrender, Enrile led his
Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital,and his Motion to Fix Bail. Enrile
claims that before judgment of conviction, an accused is entitled to bail as matter of
right; that it is the duty and burden of the Prosecution to show clearly and
conclusively that Enrile comes under the exception and cannot be excluded from
enjoying the right to bail; that the Prosecution has failed to establish that Enrile, if
convicted of plunder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua considering the presence of
two mitigating circumstances his age and his voluntary surrender; that the
Prosecution has not come forward with proof showing that his guilt for the crime of
plunder is strong; and that he should not be considered a ight risk taking into
account that he is already over the age of 90, his medical condition, and his social
standing. In its Comment,the Ombudsman contends that Enriles right to bail is
discretionary as he is charged with a capital o ense; that to be granted bail, it is
mandatory that a bail hearing be conducted to determine whether there is strong
evidence of his guilt, or the lack of it; and that entitlement to bail considers the
imposable penalty, regardless of the attendant circumstances.

ISSUE: Is Enrile entitled to bail? If YES, on what ground(s)?

HELD: YES, Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of right based on humanitarian

grounds.

The decision whether to detain or release an accused before and during trial is
ultimately an incident of the judicial power to hear and determine his criminal case.
The strength of the Prosecutions case, albeit a good measure of the accuseds
propensity for ight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary
objective of bail, which is to ensure that the accused appears at trial.
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 justied. 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 ight risk or a danger to the
community; and (2 ) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances.

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 ight
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. 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 ight risk.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.

N.B.

Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime
charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge,