Senator Jinggoy Estrada and former Quezon City representative Mike Defensor have separately asked the Sandiganbayan to grant them temporary liberty while they face separate plunder charges.
In a petition filed before the anti-graft court’s Third Division, Defensor and his co-accused, Joseph Espiritu, sought bail, arguing that the evidence against them is not strong.
Defensor and Espiritu are among the respondents in the plunder case filed against Senator Rodante Marcoleta.
The case involves the alleged transfer of P75 million to Marcoleta from Defensor, Espiritu, and businessman Aristotle Viray months before the 2025 midterm national and local elections.
Meanwhile, Estrada filed a separate petition for bail in connection with a plunder complaint accusing him of receiving P573 million in alleged kickbacks from flood control projects.
In his petition, Estrada argued that the prosecution has not shown that the evidence against him is strong.
He also said the Sandiganbayan issued a warrant for his arrest based only on a finding of probable cause.
Estrada’s latest filing came after the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division denied his earlier motion to fix the amount of bail.
In an eight-page resolution dated July 24, the court ruled that the motion was premature because Estrada had yet to file a formal petition for bail.
The anti-graft court said a hearing is required before it can determine whether an accused in a plunder case is entitled to bail.
“(T)he court finds that the instant motion to fix bail (filed by Estrada) is premature and devoid of legal basis. Until accused Estrada filed the appropriate application for bail and the court, after the requisite hearing, determines that the evidence of guilt against him is not strong, there is no occasion for the court to fix the amount of bail. The motion must, therefore, be denied,” the resolution stated.
The court added that Estrada’s earlier motion asked it to determine the amount of bail before resolving whether he was entitled to bail at all.
“This the court cannot do. The fixing of bail necessarily presupposes a prior determination that the accused is entitled to be admitted thereto. Without such determination, any discussion regarding the amount of bail would be premature,” it said.
Photo courtesy of PhilStar
Comments