pendency of the instant petition before this Court, petitioner
5. JINNGOY ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN | GR
148965 | FEBRUARY 26, 2002
TOPIC: RIGHT TO BAIL
SUMMARY: Jinggoy Estrada was among the respondents
in the crime of Plunder filed before the Ombudsman. During
the pendency of the case, he filed a petition for bail due to
his medical reasons. The Sandiganbayan denied the
petition. The Court ruled that the constitutional 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. Thus, it
mandated the Sandiganbayan to conduct an evidenciary
hearing to determine whether the evidence against the
accused is strong.
DOCTRINE: The constitutional 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.
FACTS: This petition seeks to reverse and set aside the
Resolution of herein respondent Sandiganbayan (Special
Division) issued on March 6, 2003 in Criminal Case No.
26558, granting bail to private respondent Senator Jose
Jinggoy Estrada (hereafter Jinggoy for brevity). Jinggoy was
among the respondents in the crime of Plunder filed by the
Office of the Ombudsman. On August 14, 2002, during the
filed with respondent Sandiganbayan an Urgent Second
Motion for Bail for Medical Reasons. 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 to which petitioner replied. For
three days, i.e., on September 4, 20 and 27, 2001,
respondent Sandiganbayan conducted hearings on the
motion for bail. Dr. Roberto V. Anastacio, a cardiologist of
the MakatiMedical Center, testified as sole witness for
petitioner. On December 18, 2001, petitioner filed with the
Supreme Court an Urgent Motion for Early/Immediate
Resolution of Jose Jinggoy Estradas Petition for Bail on
Medical/Humanitarian Considerations. Petitioner reiterated
the motion for bail he earlier filed with respondent
Sandiganbayan. On the same day, we issued a Resolution
referring the motion to respondent Sandiganbayan for
resolution and requiring said court to make a report, not
later than 8:30 in the morning of December 21, 2001.
On December 21, 2001, respondent court submitted its
Report. Attached to the Report was its Resolution
dated December 20, 2001 denying petitioners motion for
bail for lack of factual basis. Basing its finding on the earlier
testimony of Dr. Anastacio, the Sandiganbayan found that
petitioner 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.
ISSUE: Should he be granted bail?
RULING-RATIO: YES provided that there is an evidentiary
hearing which will determine if the evidence against the
accused is strong. The constitutional 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.
This Court is not in a position to grant bail to the
petitioner as the matter requires evidentiary hearing that
should be conducted by the Sandiganbayan. The hearings
on which respondent court based its Resolution
of December 20, 2001 involved the reception of medical
evidence only and which evidence was given in September
2001, five months ago. The records do not show that
evidence on petitioners guilt was presented before the
lower court.
Upon proper motion of the petitioner, respondent
Sandiganbayan should conduct hearings to determine if the
evidence of petitioners guilt is strong as to warrant the
granting of bail to petitioner.