The release of former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. after the Sandiganbayan granted his application for bail in his pending criminal case has once again sparked widespread public debate. Predictably, social media was flooded with criticism, disappointment and assertions that justice in the Philippines favor the rich and the politically influential. For many Filipinos who have grown weary of corruption scandals, the image of a prominent public official walking out of detention evokes frustration and skepticism about the administration justice.
These reactions are understandable as corruption cases involve allegations of betrayal of public trust, misuse of taxpayer’s money and abuse of public office. Citizens naturally expect accountability from those entrusted with government resources. Nevertheless, while emotions are valid, legal conclusions must always rest on the law and the evidence – not on public sentiment.
As we had already discussed in our previous column, one of the most concepts in the Philippine criminal law, if not the most, is the nature and purpose of bail. Up until now, many Filipinos still mistaken equate the grant of bail with a declaration of innocence. Others assume that when an accused is released from detention, the case has effectively been won. Both assumptions are legally incorrect.
It bears to stress out that bail is not an acquittal, not an exoneration and not a finding that the accused did not commit the offense. Rather, bail is a constitutional and statutory mechanism design to balance to equally important interests: the individual’s right to liberty before conviction and the State’s interest in ensuring that an accused appears before the court whenever so required.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines guarantees every accused’s right to bail except those charged with offenses punishable by life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years of imprisonment) when the evidence of guilt is strong. To be sure, before conviction, every person is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless, he or she is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. The right to bail is cognate or related to the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. It is a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s provisional liberty and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial. (G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021) This constitutional guarantee reflects on of the most fundamental principles of criminal justice – the presumption of innocence. Until that presumption is overcome by a final judgment of conviction, liberty remains the rule and detention the carefully regulated exception.
In fixing the reasonable amount of bail, the following factors shall be considered: (1) Financial ability of the accused; (2) Nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) Penalty for the offense charged; (4) Age and health of the accused; (5) Weight of evidence; (6) Probability of the accused appearing at trial; (7) Forfeiture of other bail; (8) That the accused is a fugitive when arrested; and (9) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. Excessive bail shall not be required (Section 9, Rule 114, Rules of Court)
To reiterate, in cases where the offense charged is punishable by life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, bail is a matter of discretion. Meaning, the court where the case is pending shall first make a determination in a bail hearing whether the evidence against the accused is strong or not. A bail hearing is not a full-blown trial. It is not intended to determine whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, the court makes only a provisional assessment of the Prosecution’s evidence to determine whether continued detention is legally justified. The court does not finally resolve questions of credibility, weigh every pieces of evidence as it would after trial, or decide the ultimate issue of criminal liability. Consequently, a court may conclude that the evidence is not sufficiently strong to justify the denial of bail while still allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed.
The Sandiganbayan, in its Order granting Revilla and Pineda’s application for bail emphasized that the grant of Revilla’s bail was premised on the Prosecution’s failure to present the evidence required to warrant the denial of the former’s bail application during the bail hearing, and does not prevent the court from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits, to wit:
“Here, the pieces of evidence adducted by the Prosecution during the bail hearing hearing are simply not sufficient to overcome the quantum of evidence required to deny the bail applications filed by Revilla and Penida.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that a decision on the grant of bail should not prejudice the submission of additional evidence for the Prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt in the main case. After all, a grant of bail does not prevent the court from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits.”