Sandiganbayan denies Jinggoy’s request to fix bail

The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division on Monday denied detained Senator Jinggoy Estrada’s Motion to Fix Bail, calling it premature.

“Premises considered, accused Jinggoy Estrada's Urgent Motion to Fix Bail is denied as it is premature to rule on the availability of such remedy considering that the prosecution is yet to terminate the presentation of its evidence,” the four-page instant motion said. 

 

“Unless and until the prosecution has rested its case, the Court cannot prematurely determine whether to grant or deny bail to the accused,” the anti-graft court added.

 

In his Urgent Motion to Fix Bail, Estrada complained of the slow proceedings that have kept him in detention.

 

Estrada is currently being held at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center over allegations of graft and plunder. According to whistleblowers, Estrada colluded with businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, the alleged brains of the pork barrel scam, to divert Estrada's Priority Development Assistance Fund allocation to bogus foundations.

 

Plunder is a non-bailable offense in cases where evidence is strong. Bail hearings are conducted for the prosecution to present evidence on the case.

 

“We recognize that accused Estrada is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, by virtue of his indictment for Plunder, which carries with it the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he is not entitled to bail as a matter of right as bail is discretionary upon the court,” the court said in its decision.

 

In the motion submitted last Dec. 2, Estrada pointed out that despite the long list of witnesses the prosecution intends to present, none so far have been able to prove that Estrada had an active hand in the scam

 

However, the court noted that Estrada is in no place to complain about the speed of the proceedings, or to compel the court to fix bail, when the prosecution has yet to finish presenting evidence. 

 

“The prosecution shall be accorded the opportunity to present all the evidence it may deem necessary for this purpose. It is quite clear that it is for the prosecution to determine (and not for the accused) whether it has presented sufficient evidence to support its burden. Accused's argument that the remaining witnesses for the prosecution would not have anything substantial to add to the evidence so far presented is speculative at best,” the court said. — Patricia Denise Chiu/JDS, GMA News