The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division has denied Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada’s bid to fix bail in his plunder case over the alleged flood control irregularities.

The July 24 ruling, penned by Associate Justice Gener M. Gito, said the court could not immediately set Estrada’s bail without first determining whether the prosecution’s evidence against him is strong.

“The court reiterates that it is premature at this point to fix the bail for the temporary liberty of accused Estrada,” the ruling said.

The court said Estrada is charged with plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended, an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua.

“Consequently, his entitlement to bail depends upon a prior judicial determination that the evidence of guilt against him is not strong,” the ruling said.

The court said the issue before it was not whether Estrada is a flight risk or whether he may ultimately be admitted to bail.

“Rather, the threshold issue is whether the court may immediately proceed to fix the amount of bail despite the absence of a prior judicial determination of whether the evidence of guilt against accused Estrada is strong,” it said.

Under the Constitution and Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the court said an accused charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua does not enjoy an unconditional right to bail.

“Before bail may be granted, the court must first determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong,” the ruling said, adding that such a determination “requires a hearing at which the prosecution is afforded an opportunity to present evidence in support of its position.”

The court said ”if the evidence of guilt is found not to be strong, the accused may be allowed to post bail,” after which the court may fix its amount and prescribe the conditions for provisional release.

Meanwhile, “if the evidence is found to be strong, bail must be denied,” it said.

“No such determination has been made in this case,” the court said, noting that Estrada has not filed an application for bail that would trigger the required hearing.

“Since no hearing has been conducted, no evidence has been presented by the prosecution, and therefore, no factual basis exists upon which the court may evaluate the strength of the evidence against accused Estrada,” the ruling said.

The court also rejected Estrada’s reliance on his previous plunder case to justify the immediate fixing of bail.

“In that earlier case, provisional liberty was not granted to accused Estrada through a simple motion to fix bail,” the court said.

“Bail was allowed only after the Sandiganbayan conducted the required evidentiary hearing on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence,” it added.

The court said Estrada cannot use the outcome of his previous case to bypass the mandatory bail hearing in the present case.

“Indeed, accused Estrada’s instant motion effectively asks the court to fix the amount of bail without first resolving the antecedent question of whether bail may be granted at all,” the ruling said.

The court said fixing bail “necessarily presupposes a prior determination that the accused is entitled to be admitted thereto.”

“Until accused Estrada files 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 ruling said.