Ibinasura ng Sandiganbayan ang mosyon ni Senador Jinggoy Estrada na agad magtakda ng halaga ng piyansa para sa kanyang pansamantalang paglaya.
Ikinatwiran ni Estrada na dapat magtakda ang anti-graft court ng piyansa batay sa naging pasya nito sa nauna niyang kasong plunder.
Gayunman, sa walong-pahinang resolusyon na may petsang July 24, pinasiyahan ng Fifth Division ng Sandiganbayan na napaaga ang paghahain ng mosyon dahil wala pang aktuwal na aplikasyon si Estrada para payagang makapagpiyansa.
Hindi rin maaaring gamitin ng senador ang naunang kasong plunder bilang batayan upang agad payagan ang piyansa nang hindi isinasagawa ang kinakailangang pagdinig, ayon sa korte.
“(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,” ayon sa Sandiganbayan.
Tinukoy rin ng korte na ang mosyon ni Estrada “asks the court to fix the amount of bail without first resolving the antecedent question of whether bail may be granted 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,” dagdag nito.
Nilinaw ng Sandiganbayan na sa naunang kaso, hindi napayagan si Estrada na makapagpiyansa sa pamamagitan lamang ng simpleng mosyon upang magtakda ng halaga.
“Bail was allowed only after the Sandiganbayan conducted the required evidentiary hearing on the strength of the prosecutions’ evidence. Here. accused Estrada attempts to bypass this indispensable constitutional requirement by asking the court immediately fix the amount of bail without undergoing the mandated summary bail hearing. Hence, he cannot use the outcome of his previous case to justify a pro dural shortcut in the present motion,” ayon sa Sandiganbayan. /Bistado