Sandiganbayan denies Senator Estrada bid to fix bail in plunder case

The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division has denied Sen. Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada's motion to fix bail in his plunder case stemming from alleged irregularities in flood control projects. The court ruled that the request is premature without first determining whether the evidence against him is strong.

In a decision dated July 24 and penned by Associate Justice Gener M. Gito, the anti-graft court said it cannot set bail for Estrada unless it first conducts the hearing required under the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

Estrada is charged with plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended, an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua. Because of the gravity of the charge, the court said bail is not automatically available.

"Consequently, his entitlement to bail depends upon a prior judicial determination that the evidence of guilt against him is not strong," the ruling said.

The court stressed that the issue before it was not whether Estrada poses a flight risk, but whether it could determine the amount of bail without first resolving whether he is entitled to bail in the first place.

Under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the Sandiganbayan said a hearing must first be conducted to allow the prosecution to present evidence. The court can only determine if the accused may be granted provisional liberty after evaluating that evidence.

If the evidence is found not to be strong, the court said it may then allow the accused to post bail and determine its amount. If the evidence is strong, bail must be denied.

The court noted that no such determination has been made because Estrada has yet to file an application for bail that would trigger the required evidentiary hearing.

"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 likewise rejected Estrada's argument that his previous plunder case justified immediately fixing his bail, saying his provisional liberty in that case was granted only after the court held the mandatory hearing on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

The court said Estrada cannot rely on the outcome of that earlier case to bypass the same constitutional requirement in the present proceedings.

"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.