The Sandiganbayan has denied Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s motion for reconsideration asking the court to fix bail in his plunder case over his alleged receipt of kickbacks from flood control projects.
The anti-graft court’s Fifth Division maintained that it would be premature to set bail when it has yet to conduct a bail hearing to assess if the evidence of guilt in his case is strong or not.
It clarified that the denial of Estrada’s motion to fix bail is not a determination that he is not entitled to bail.
Estrada earlier contended that the court can fix bail before a hearing on his bail petition, citing the Supreme Court decision granting bail to Juan Ponce Enrile in his plunder case regardless of the strength of the evidence against him because Enrile was not a flight risk.
Estrada said that like Enrile, he was not a flight risk.
But the Sandiganbayan rejected his invocation of the Enrile ruling, saying that decision did not lay down a general rule. The Enrile ruling must be appreciated “in light of the exceptional circumstances that attended that case,” it said.
It said the Supreme Court took into account Enrile’s advanced age and fragile state of health and other circumstances showing that his continued detention posed serious humanitarian concerns.
“The ruling cannot reasonably be understood as establishing a general rule that an accused charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua may obtain bail without the requisite determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong merely upon showing that he is not a flight risk, possesses substantial social or political ties, or has previously complied with travel conditions imposed by this court,” it said.
It also said Estrada is not in the same circumstances as Enrile since he is not of advanced age or frail health and does not have any similar compelling humanitarian consideration.
“More importantly, Enrile cannot be read in isolation from the constitutional requirements on bail. Its exceptional factual circumstances do not erase the general rule that when bail is discretionary, the court must determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong,” it added.
The Sandiganbayan said it cannot place the cart before the horse, it said.
“It cannot first fix the amount of bail and thereby effectively recognize accused Estrada’s entitlement to provisional liberty before undertaking the very inquiry that determines whether he may be admitted to bail in the first place,” it said.
It noted that Estrada has filed a separate petition for bail, which it said was the proper procedural vehicle through which the court may determine whether Estrada is entitled to provisional liberty.