remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be

Remanded to the trial court to determine whether

This preview shows page 25 - 26 out of 29 pages.

remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence.” JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES FACTS: On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile 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). On June 10, 2014 and June 16, 2014, Enrile respectively filed his Omnibus Motion and Supplemental Opposition, praying, among others, that he be allowed to post bail should probable cause be found against him. Said motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan. On 3 July 2014, a warrant for Enrile's arrest was issued, leading to petitioner's voluntary surrender. Thereafter, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital and his Motion to Fix Bail, which were heard by the Sandiganbayan on July 8, 2014. In support of the motions, Enrile argued that he should be allowed to post bail because: (a) the Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (b) although he was charged with plunder, the penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his age and physical condition must further be seriously considered. Sandiganbayan denied the motions in a Resolution and also denied a motion for reconsideration. (These are the only relevant facts, the rest were already discussed previously regarding bill of particulars and sufficiency of the Information field against him) ISSUE: Whether or not bail may be granted to the accused as a matter of right and also since, as the same avers, that he is not a flight risk nor is the evidence of guilt strong RULING: YES. Right to bail is afforded in Art III Sec. 13 of the 1987 Constitution and repeated in Rule 114 Sec. 7 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, stating that “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”. Thus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong. Where evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted according to the discretion of the court. Furthermore, accused does not fall under one of the enumerations in Rule 114 Sec. 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Also, petitioner's poor health justifies his admission to bail. The Supreme Court took note of the Philippines’ responsibility to the international community arising from its commitment to the Universal Declaration of 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
Image of page 25
Image of page 26

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 29 pages?

  • Fall '15
  • Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture