People vs. Jinggoy Estrada [Case Digest]

 

People vs. Jinggoy Estrada

G.R. No. 148965

 

Facts:

An information of the crime of Plunder was filed in the Sandiganbayan againts herein Petitioner Jinggoy Estrada then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila. Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash or Suspend" the Amended Information on the ground that the Anti-Plunder Law, R.A. No. 7080, is unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense. Respondent Ombudsman opposed the motion.

Respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner and his co-accused. On its basis, petitioner and his co-accused were placed in custody of the law. Petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: (1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. In the alternative, petitioner also prayed that he be allowed to post bail in an amount to be fixed by respondent court. Petitioner prayed that he be allowed to post bail due to his serious medical condition which is life-threatening to him if he goes back to his place of detention. The motion was opposed by respondent Ombudsman.

Respondent court denied the petitioner’s motion for bail for "lack of factual basis."

 

Issue:

Whether or not the Supreme Court can grant bail to the petitioner as the matter requires evidentiary hearing.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The crime of plunder is punished by R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Section 12 of R.A. No. 7659, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Under our Rules, offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are non-bailable when the evidence of guilt is strong, to wit:

"Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution."

The Constitutional and the Rules of Court mandate makes the grant or denial of bail in capital offenses hinge on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. This requires that the trial court conduct bail hearings wherein both the prosecution and the defense are afforded sufficient opportunity to present their respective evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show strong evidence of guilt.

SC is not in a position to grant bail to the petitioner as the matter requires evidentiary hearing that should be conducted by the Sandiganbayan.