Petitioner and his co accused were placed in custody of the law Petitioner was

Petitioner and his co accused were placed in custody

This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 6 pages.

Petitioner and his co-accused were placed in custody of the law. Petitioner was arraigned but refused to enter a plea. So the court entered a plea of not guilty. Is petitioner Jinggoy Estrada entitled to bail as a matter of right? Answer: The Court noted that the hearings on which respondent court based its Resolution denying the motion for bail involved the reception of medical evidence only and which evidence was given 5 months earlier in September 2001. The records do not show that evidence on petitioner's guilt was presented before the lower court. Thus, the Sandiganbayan was ordered to conduct hearings to ascertain whether evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong to determine whether to grant bail to the latter. Jinggoy Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan. The Government of the USA, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC, the Petition for Extradition praying for the issuance of an order for his “immediate arrest” pursuant to Sec. 6 of PD 1069 in order to prevent the flight of Jimenez. Before the RTC could act on the petition, Mr. Jimenez filed before it an “Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion” praying for his application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. After the hearing, as required by the court, Mr. Jimenez submitted his Memorandum. Therein seeking an alternative prayer that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100 thousand. The court ordered the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty. Did Hon. Purganan act with grave abuse of discretion in granting the prayer for bail? Answer: Yes; bail bond posted is cancelled. The constitutional provision on bail on Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. Moreover, the constitutional right to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In extradition, the presumption of innocence is not at issue. Gov’t of USA vs. Hon. Purganan.
Image of page 2
Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and legal counsel of Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. He allegedly received, on behalf of the said foundation, millions of pesos coming from illegal activities. The Ombudsman recommended the filing of a case against him before the Sandiganbayan; a warrant for his arrest was issued. Upon learning of the said warrant he voluntarily surrendered to the PNP.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 6 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • criminal law, Appellate court, Judge Donato & Salas

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture