CASE 2016-0047: JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (G.R. 213847, 12 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; BAIL) (BRIEF TITLE: ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
“Bail exists to ensure society’s interest in having the accused answer to a criminal prosecution without unduly restricting his or her liberty and without ignoring the accused’s right to be presumed innocent. It does not perform the function of preventing or licensing the commission of a crime. The notion that bail is required to punish a person accused of crime is, therefore, fundamentally misplaced. Indeed, the practice of admission to bail is not a device for keeping persons in jail upon mere accusation until it is found convenient to give them a trial. The spirit of the procedure is rather to enable them to stay out of jail until a trial with all the safeguards has found and adjudged them guilty. Unless permitted this conditional privilege, the individuals wrongly accused could be punished by the period or imprisonment they undergo while awaiting trial, and even handicap them in consulting counsel, searching for evidence and witnesses, and preparing a defense. Hence, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in pretrial liberty and society’s interest in assuring his presence at trial.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“Admission to bail always involves the risk that the accused will take flight. This is the reason precisely why the probability or the improbability of flight is an important factor to be taken into consideration in granting or denying bail, even in capital cases. The exception to the fundamental right to bail should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion of prosecution. Apparently, an accused’s official and social standing and his other personal circumstances arc considered and appreciated as tending to render his flight improbable.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“The petitioner has proven with more than sufficient evidence that he would not be a flight risk. For one, his advanced age and fragile state of health have minimized the likelihood that he would make himself scarce and escape from the jurisdiction of our courts. The testimony of Dr. Jose C. Gonzales, Director of the Philippine General Hospital, showed that the petitioner was a geriatric patient suffering from various medical conditions, 16 which, singly or collectively, could pose significant risks to his life. The medical findings and opinions have” been uncontested by the Prosecution even in their present Motion for Reconsideration.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 