G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, and Janet Lim Napoles, Accused, Janet Lim Napoles, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On December 7, 2018, the Sandiganbayan Special First Division convicted Richard A. Cambe and Janet Lim Napoles of Plunder, a capital offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, in relation to the misuse of Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr.’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Napoles appealed the conviction and is detained at the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW). Pending resolution of her appeal, Napoles filed an Urgent Motion for Recognizance/Bail or House Arrest for Humanitarian Reason Due to COVID-19. She alleges she is at risk of contracting COVID-19 in prison due to her Diabetes, an underlying health condition. She invokes humanitarian grounds based on the cases of De La Rama v. People’s Court and Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, cites Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 91-2020, and references the Nelson Mandela Rules as a basis for releasing persons deprived of liberty during public health emergencies.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Constitution and the Rules of Court allow an accused to post bail pending the appeal of a conviction for a capital offense.
2. Whether Napoles could be provisionally released on humanitarian grounds due to the risk of contracting COVID-19.
3. Whether the Nelson Mandela Rules and international calls for temporary release of prisoners due to COVID-19 provide sufficient basis to grant bail post-conviction.

RULING

The Court denied Napoles’ Motion.
1. The presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to bail end after conviction for a capital offense. The Constitution guarantees the right to bail before conviction, except for those charged with a capital offense where evidence of guilt is strong. The Rules of Court state that no person charged with a capital offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. After conviction, bail is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, exercised with grave caution. For a capital offense like Plunder, where the Sandiganbayan determined the evidence of guilt was strong pre-conviction and later found guilt beyond reasonable doubt, bail must not be granted during the pendency of the appeal.
2. There are no compelling reasons to justify provisional release on “humanitarian grounds.” The cases of De La Rama and Enrile are exceptional, involving accused persons whose continued incarceration was shown to be injurious to their health or life, requiring special medical attention. Napoles only presented an unauthenticated medical certificate indicating Diabetes and Hypertension. This allegation is a question of fact not for the Court to determine, and the condition itself is insufficient to grant provisional liberty post-conviction. The Court emphasized that unless there is clear showing of a medical condition requiring immediate specialized attention outside confinement, such as actual exposure to or infection with COVID-19, an accused must remain in custody.
3. The Nelson Mandela Rules and international calls do not provide sufficient basis to grant bail post-conviction. The Nelson Mandela Rules are soft-law instruments that guide prison management and do not create enforceable rights to temporary release. Domestic laws, such as the Bureau of Corrections Act of 2013 (RA 10575), govern the treatment and welfare of prisoners in the Philippines. OCA Circular No. 91-2020 applies to first and second level courts for decongesting jails by enforcing rights to bail and speedy trial for accused persons, not for post-conviction release. The Recognizance Act of 2012 (RA 10389) also applies only to indigent accused before conviction, not to those already convicted.