On September 16, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman received the report of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), regarding its investigation on several persons, including Napoles, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and his former Chief of Staff, Atty. Jessica Lucila Reyes. In its report, the NBI recommended to prosecute Napoles, former Senator Enrile, Reyes, and several other named individuals for the crime of plunder, defined and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as amended, for essentially misappropriating former Senator Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that were selected without the required bidding procedure.
The Office of the Ombudsman received a Complaint from its Field Investigation Office (FIO), criminally charging former Senator Enrile, Reyes, Napoles, and fifty-two (52) other individuals with violations of RA No 7080 and Section 3(e) of RA No 3019.
In a Joint Resolution, the Ombudsman Special Panel of Investigators found probable cause to indict Napoles, among others, with one (1) count of plunder and fifteen (15) counts of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Some of the accused, including Napoles, filed their respective motions for reconsideration. The Special Panel of Investigators denied these motions in its Joint Order but dropped Ruby Chan Tuason as a respondent, in light of her admission as a State witness and her corresponding immunity from criminal prosecution.
In an Information dated June 5, 2014, Napoles, together with former Senator Enrile, Reyes, Ronald John Lim and John Raymund De Asis, were charged with plunder in a criminal case filed with the Sandiganbayan.
On July 7, 2014, Napoles filed her Petition for Bail, arguing that the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing the res inter alios acta rule, Napoles submitted that the testimonies of the whistleblowers are inadmissible against her as mere hearsay.
The Sandiganbayan conducted bail hearings. The prosecution presented witnesses and the supposed beneficiaries of former Senator Enrile’s PDF projects. After the conclusion of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, Napoles manifested that she is not presenting any evidence for her bail application.
The Sandiganbayan denied her Petition for Bail for lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in denying her bail application
Ruling:
The petition is dismissed. The Petition for Bail of Napoles was correctly denied.
The Court found that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It merely discharged its judicial duty in Napoles’ bail application in a manner consistent with the applicable laws and jurisprudence, and evidence on record.
The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the evidence of Napoles’ guilt for the crime of Plunder is strong. Despite the arrest of the accused or his/her voluntary surrender, the accused may be granted provisional liberty as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights with the right to bail. However, the accused cannot avail of this right if he is charged with a capital offense. While bail may generally be granted as a matter of right prior to the conviction of the accused, those charged with a capital offense is granted bail only when the evidence of guilt is not strong. A bail application may also be denied by the trial court when the accused is a flight risk, notwithstanding the prosecution’s evidence on the guilt of the accused.
In Cortes v. Catral, the Court laid down the duties of the trial court in cases of an application for bail namely: (1) in all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended); (2) where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (3) decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; and (4) if the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond. Otherwise the petition should be denied.
Since Napoles was charged with the crime of plunder, which carries an imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua, she cannot be admitted to bail when the evidence of her guilt is strong. As a trial court, the Sandiganbayan possessed the jurisdiction to hear and weigh the evidence of the prosecution and the defense.
