The Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division has denied Senator Jinggoy Estrada’s motion for the immediate fixing of bail in his plunder case involving alleged flood control project irregularities.
In a July 24 decision penned by Associate Justice Gener Gito, the anti-graft court ruled that it cannot set a bail amount without first evaluating whether the prosecution’s evidence against the lawmaker is strong.
“The court reiterates that it is premature at this point to fix the bail for the temporary liberty of accused Estrada,” the ruling said.
The court noted that Estrada faces plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, an offense carrying the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
“Consequently, his entitlement to bail depends upon a prior judicial determination that the evidence of guilt against him is not strong,” the ruling said.
Clarifying the core matter, the court stated that the central issue is not whether Estrada is a flight risk or might eventually qualify for provisional release.
“Rather, the threshold issue is whether the court may immediately proceed to fix the amount of bail despite the absence of a prior judicial determination of whether the evidence of guilt against accused Estrada is strong,” it said.
Citing the Constitution and Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the Sandiganbayan stressed that individuals charged with crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua do not enjoy automatic bail rights.
“Before bail may be granted, the court must first determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong,” the ruling said, adding that such a determination “requires a hearing at which the prosecution is afforded an opportunity to present evidence in support of its position.”
The anti-graft court explained the conditional process for granting or denying bail based on the outcome of that hearing:
“If the evidence of guilt is found not to be strong, the accused may be allowed to post bail,” the court said.
“If the evidence is found to be strong, bail must be denied,” it said.
Because Estrada has not filed a formal bail application to trigger the required hearing, the court noted that no evaluation could take place.
“Since no hearing has been conducted, no evidence has been presented by the prosecution, and therefore, no factual basis exists upon which the court may evaluate the strength of the evidence against accused Estrada,” the ruling said.
The Sandiganbayan also turned down Estrada’s argument that his previous plunder case set a precedent for setting bail immediately in these new proceedings.
“In that earlier case, provisional liberty was not granted to accused Estrada through a simple motion to fix bail,” the court said.
“Bail was allowed only after the Sandiganbayan conducted the required evidentiary hearing on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence,” it added.
Emphasizing that the outcome of a prior trial cannot bypass standard legal process, the court held that fixing bail can only occur after establishing legal entitlement to it.
“Indeed, accused Estrada’s instant motion effectively asks the court to fix the amount of bail without first resolving the antecedent question of whether bail may be granted at all,” the ruling said.
“Until accused Estrada files the appropriate application for bail and the court, after the requisite hearing, determines that the evidence of guilt against him is not strong, there is no occasion for the court to fix the amount of bail,” the ruling said.