NOT A FEW kibitzers almost fell off their seats when Secretary Crispin Remulla of the Department of Justice said the prosecution will oppose the bail application of former Senator Leila de Lima if it is anchored on the merits of the case and not on humanitarian grounds such as the one done in the case of Atty. Gigi Reyes.
The right to bail is anchored on the Constitution. All courts trying criminal cases are required to grant it.
The only instance when the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, i.e., the court may or may not grant it, is when the crime charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong.
***
The burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong rests on the shoulders of the prosecution. It has to convince the court that the charges on file are buttressed by enough evidence to sustain a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the part of the accused.
The question of whether or not the court ought to grant bail pending trial necessarily entails an assessment of the merits of the case. Evidence must be weighed by the court.
In fact, it may even be argued, at this stage, that a judge hearing the bail application abuses their discretion if factors other than evidence are considered in determining whether the accused should be set free in the meantime.
After all, only two requisites are provided under the Constitution: that the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, and that the evidence of guilt is strong.
***
The Gigi Reyes petition sought relief from the vexatious and prolonged trial of her criminal cases. She was granted bail in response to a habeas corpus petition despite the fact that the crimes she is accused to have committed are punishable by life imprisonment.
An assessment of the evidence against Reyes was no longer available as an option. Her bail petition anchored on the dearth of prosecution evidence had long been denied by the Sandiganbayan.
Although dubbed as a humanitarian gesture, the decision to grant her bail was premised on her constitutional right to a speedy trial.
***
To be sure, Sen. De Lima is as entitled to a speedy disposition of her cases. She has been in detention for the past six years. She, however, has the added constitutional right to have her bail application assessed based on the evidence on record.
The grant of bail based on an assessment of the evidence would mean that prosecution evidence is “not strong” at this juncture. It can very well signal De Lima’s eventual acquittal from the drug charges leveled against her by the Duterte administration.
***
It does not take much thinking to see why bail based on humanitarian grounds is more palatable to the administration. It does require an assessment of what government has, or does not have, against de Lima.
A finding that the evidence is weak would betray the utter lack of legal foundation to a criminal prosecution that crippled a very weak political opposition during the heavy-handed administration of Rodrigo Duterte.
This also goes to show that de lima’s case is not being treated like any other case. It is being splashed with political color every step of the way./PN
