PEOPLE V SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL DIVISION) - One of the Informations was for the crime of plunder under RA 7080
AUG 10 2007 | GARCIA, J. and among the respondents was Jose Jinggoy Estrada, then mayor
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Former President Estrada was charged with plunder along with members of
his family, his associates, friends and conspirators [INCLUDING JINGGOY;
for specific acts of Jinggoy SEE a-d]. The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of
arrest and they were placed in custody of the law. Jinggoy applied for
Omnibus Application for Bail before the Sandiganbayan and the Special
Division granted the bail for P500,000. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration [DENIED]. Hence this petition.
DOCTRINE:
Even capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the
evidence of guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the
probability of escape is great. Grant of bail is predicated only on its
preliminary appreciation of the evidence adduced in the bail hearing to
determine whether or not deprivation of the right to bail is warranted. A grant
of bail does not prevent the trier of facts from making a final assessment of
the evidence after full trial on the merits.
APPLICATION TO CASE:
(1) Estrada was not considered as a flight-risk (seeing that he was
elected as Senator)
(2) Sandiganbayan is still in the process of determining the facts and
merits of the case
(3) Sandiganbayans statement that Jinggoys criminal liability would
probably not warrant the death penalty or reclusion perpetua
Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest and they were placed in custody
FACTS
As an offshoot of the Impeachment proceedings against then President
Estrada, 5 criminal complaints against the him and members of his family,
his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause
warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal
Informations against the former President and the other respondents.
of San Juan, Metro Manila. This case was assigned to the 3rd Division
of the Sandiganbayan.
Amended information: charged with plunder defined and penalized
under RA 7080 as amended by Sec 12 of RA 7659
(P4,097,804,173.17) through any or a combination of a series of overt
or criminal acts or similar schemes or means:
a. P545M from illegal gambling in the form of gift, share,
percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit in
consideration of toleration or protection of illegal
gambling
b. P130M from diverting, receiving, misappropriating, converting
or misusing public funds (from the portion of P200M
tobacco excise tax share allocated for Province of Ilocos
Sur under Art 7171)
c. directing, ordering and compelling the GSIS to purchase
351,878,000 shares of stock, the SSS 329,855,000 shares
of stock of the Belle Corporation in the amount of
P1,847,578,057.50 and by collecting or receiving directly or
indirectly commissions or percentages by reason of said
purchases in the amount of P189,700,000 which became
part of the deposit in the Equitable-PCI Bank under Jose
Velarde
d. by unjustly enriching himself from commissions, gifts,
shares percentages, kickbacks or any form of pecuniary
benefits in the amount of P3,233,104,173.17 and depositing
the same under Jose Velardo at Equitable-PCI Bank
of the law.
- JINGGOY: (1) no probable cause exists; and (2) he is entitled to bail as
a matter of right.
- SANDIGANBAYAN: RESOLUTION [DENIED]; Alternative prayer to post
bail was set for hearing after arraignment of all accused.
- JINGGOY: MR OF THE RESOLUTION
- SANDIGANBAYAN: DENIED and proceeded to arraign him.
 - JINGGOY: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO SC: (1) sustaining the
charge against him and with alleged conspirators with whom he is not
even connected, and (2) in not fixing bail for him.
- JINGGOY: Urgent Second Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons
- SANDIGANBAYAN: OPPOSED; conducted hearings on the motion for
bail with Dr. Roberto Atanacio of Makati Medical Center appearing as
sole witness for Jinggoy
- JINGGOY: Urgent Motion with SC praying for early resolution of his
Petition for Bail on Medical/Humanitarian Considerations.
- SC: referred the motion to the Sandiganbayan for resolution and
directed said court to make a report not later than 8:30AM of Dec 21 01
- SANDIGANBAYAN: Report was submitted with copy of
Sandiganbayans Resolution denying Jinggoys motion for bail for lack
of factual basis - failed to submit sufficient evidence to convince the
court that the medical condition of the accused requires that he be
confined at home and for that purpose that he be allowed to post bail.
- SC: DISMISSED EARLIER PETITION
- JINGGOY: Omnibus Application for Bail before Sandiganbayan.
- SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL DIVISION): GRANTED for P500K
- PETITIONER: MR
- SANDIGANBAYAN: DENIED
ISSUE: WON respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion when it
granted Jinggoy Estradas application for bail? NO
RULING:
SEC 13 ART III. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance
as may be provided by law. xxx
Even capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the
evidence of guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the
probability of escape is great.
- Jinggoy does not (as determined by Sandiganbayan) seem to be a flight
risk. The likelihood of escape is now almost nil given his election on
May 10 2004 as Senator.
- The Court takes stock of the fact that those who usually jump bail are
shadowy characters mindless of their reputation in the eyes of the
people for as long as they can flee from the retribution of justice.
- ON THE OTHER HAND, those with reputation and a respectable name
to protect and preserve are very unlikely to jump bail.
- The Court, to be sure, cannot accept any suggestion that someone who
has a popular mandate to serve as Senator is harboring any plan to give
up his Senate seat in exchange for becoming a fugitive from service.
ON THEORY OF OVERLAPPING OF CONSPIRACIES, rulings in Catelo
and Ty Sui Wong are not on all-fours applicable to and of governing sway to
the issue of the propriety of revoking Jinggoys release on bail.
- Cases mentioned contextually dealt with the guilt of culprits for the
crimes of murder unlike in this proceeding, the propriety of a grant of
bail, given the evidence for or against the bail application, was not an
issue in the cases.
- And in present case, Sandiganbayan is still in the process of
determining the facts and merits of the main case.
- Revoking the bail thus granted to Jinggoy, as the petitioner urges, which
necessarily implies that the evidence of his guilt is strong would be
tantamount to pre-empting the Sandiganbayans on-going
determination of the facts and merits of the main case.
GRANT OF BAIL IS PREDICATED ONLY ON ITS PRELIMINARY
APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN THE BAIL HEARING
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO
BAIL IS WARRANTED
- A grant of bail does not prevent the trier of facts, the same Anti-Graft
Court, from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on
the merits.
As final consideration, the Court notes a statement made by the
respondent court:
xxx Corollarily, it is not amiss to state that, at this time, there looms the
possibility that, in case of conviction, Jinggoys criminal liability would
probably not warrant the death penalty or reclusion perpetua