The Supreme Court,voting 7-6-1, has denied with finality, for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration filed by the People of the Philippines from the SC’s decision questioning the grant of bail for the temporary liberty of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile.
The court in its original decision voted 8-4 to grant bail last August 18 to Enrile,who turned 92 years old last February.
In its original decision two SC justices, Diosdado Peralta and Del Castillo qualified their vote citing the required “humanitarian grounds.”
In its resolution, the majority of the tribunal stated that the people were not kept in the dark about nor were they denied a reasonable opportunity to rebut the instability of his wealth and his advanced age even if these were not raised in the motion for bail.
The court explained that through his omnibus motion dated June 10,2014 and his motion to fix bail dated July 7,2014, Enrile “manifested to the Sandiganbayan his currently frail health,and presented medical certificates to show that his physical condition required constant medical attention.”
The tribunal also cited that through his motion for reconsideration, Enrile “incor-porated the findings of the government physicians to establish the present state of his health.”
On its part, the court also noted that the anti-graft court “solicited the medical opinions of the relevant doctors from the Philippine General Hospital.”
The tribunal also denied there was a preferential treatment accorded to Enrile because he was a senator.
“(T)he court did not grant his (Enrile) provisional liberty because he was a sitting senator of the republic. It did so because there were proper bases—legal as well as factual—for the favorable consideration and treatment of his plea for provisional liberty on bail.”
Those who voted with the ponente , Justice Lucas Bersamin, to deny the motion for reconsideration were Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Leonardo De Castro,Arturo Brion, Jose Perez and Bienvenido Reyes.Those who joined the dissent by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen were Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno, and Justices Antonio Carpio, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Benjamin Caguioa. Justice Francisco Jardeleza took no part and Associate Justice Jose Mendoza is on leave.
Enrile earlier filed a petition for certiorari to assail and annul the resolutions dated July 14, 20142 and August 8, 20143 issued by the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) in Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238, where he has been charged with plunder along with several others. Enrile insists that the resolutions, which respectively denied his Motion To Fix Bail and his Motion For Reconsideration, were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the website of chanrobleslaw quoted the SC’s earlier ruling.
It stated in coming up with antecedents that 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. The motions were heard by the Sandiganbayan after the Prosecution filed its Consolidated Opposition.7
On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued its resolution denying Enrile’s motion, particularly on the matter of bail, on the ground of its prematurity, considering that Enrile had not yet then voluntarily surrendered or been placed under the custody of the law.
The Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Enrile and voluntarily surrendered to Director Benjamin Magalong of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and was later on confined at the Philippine National Police (PNP) General Hospital following his medical examination.
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.
By July 14, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued its first assailed resolution denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail, saying that the it is only after the prosecution shall have presented its evidence and the Court shall have made a determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong against accused Enrile can he demand bail as a matter of right. Then and only then will the Court be duty-bound to fix the amount of his bail.
The court added that no such determination had been made by the Court and that Enrile has not filed an application for bail. Necessarily, no bail hearing can even commence. It is thus exceedingly premature for accused Enrile to ask the Court to fix his bail.
The Sadiganbayan ruling also said that Enrile’s argument was that the Court should grant him bail because while he is charged with plunder, “the maximum penalty that may be possibly imposed on him is reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua.” based on Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080, as amended, and on the allegation that he is over seventy (70) years old and that he voluntarily surrendered. “Accordingly, it may be said that the crime charged against Enrile is not punishable by reclusion perpetua, and thus bailable.”
But stated that the argument has no merit.
source: The Daily Tribune
No comments:
Post a Comment