CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN GR. No. 213847, August 18, 2015

ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 

GR. No. 213847, August 18, 2015 


FACTS 

Former senator Juan Ponce Enrile, then 90 years of age, charged with plunder involving his alleged involvement in the misappropriation of the Philippine Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), voluntary surrendered and filed for a motion for detention at the PNP General hospital. He then filed a motion to fix bail arguing that it is a matter of right on account of mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and age. The ombudsman contends that Enrile‟s right to bail is only discretionary since plunder is involves capital punishment. 

ISSUE 

Whether or not Enrile is allowed to bail. 

RULING 

YES, Enrile should be allowed to bail. 

As a general rule; Any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable unless he is charged with a criminal offense or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. The Supreme Court further explains that bail for the professional liberty should be allowed independently of the merits of the crime charged, regardless of the crime, if it clearly shown that continuous incarnation is injurious to health or danger to life. Bail is a matter right and is safeguarded by the constitution, its purpose is to ensure the personal appearance of the accused during trial or whenever the court requires and at the same time recognizing the guarantee of due process which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. 

In the case at bar, considering that Enrile is already of 90 years of age, the court ruled that he should be granted bail to enable him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and attended, which will then allow him to attend trial therefore achieving the true purpose of the bail.








Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147