Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CRIM LAW 2 - Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Pop Corn
    28 views2 pages
    The Sandiganbayan denied Janet Lim Napoles' petition for bail on charges of plunder and graft. Napoles argued the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt, but the prosecution submitted numerous witnesses and documents establishing Napoles' involvement in misappropriating public funds through fake NGOs. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's decision, finding the evidence demonstrated a great presumption of Napoles' guilt for the capital offense of plunder. As bail may be denied when the evidence shows a great presumption of guilt for a capital crime, the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in denying Napoles' petition.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Sandiganbayan denied Janet Lim Napoles' petition for bail on charges of plunder and graft. Napoles argued the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt, but the prosecution submitted numerous witnesses and documents establishing Napoles' involvement in misappropriating public funds through fake NGOs. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's decision, finding the evidence demonstrated a great presumption of Napoles' guilt for the capital offense of plunder. As bail may be denied when the evidence shows a great presumption of guilt for a capital crime, the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in denying Napoles' petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views2 pages

    CRIM LAW 2 - Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Pop Corn
    The Sandiganbayan denied Janet Lim Napoles' petition for bail on charges of plunder and graft. Napoles argued the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt, but the prosecution submitted numerous witnesses and documents establishing Napoles' involvement in misappropriating public funds through fake NGOs. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's decision, finding the evidence demonstrated a great presumption of Napoles' guilt for the capital offense of plunder. As bail may be denied when the evidence shows a great presumption of guilt for a capital crime, the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in denying Napoles' petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Criminal Law 2 – Assignment 05

    Grace Dela Rama, JD1-A

    Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan


    G.R. No. 228373, March 12, 2018

    Facts:
    In 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman received: (1) a Complaint from its Field
    Investigation Office; and (2) a recommendation from the NBI; charging Janet Lim
    Napoles, former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, his Chief of Staff, Atty. Jessica Lucila Reyes
    and several other individuals with the crime of Plunder under RA 7080 and violations of
    the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) for allegedly misappropriating
    former Sen. Enrile’s PDAF through fictitious NGO’s. After the Ombudsman Special
    Panel of Investigators established probable cause, complaints were brought before the
    Sandiganbayan.
    Napoles filed a Petition for Bail claiming that the prosecution's evidence was
    inadequate to establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hearings on bail were held
    by the Sandiganbayan. Napoles did not submit any witnesses or any evidence, although
    the prosecution called numerous witnesses. Following that, the Sandiganbayan rejected
    Napoles' motion for reconsideration as well as her bail petition. Hence, this petition for
    certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
    Sandiganbayan.

    Issue:
    Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the Petition for Bail.

    Ruling:
    No. The Court ruled that Sandiganbayan did not err in denying the petition for
    bail. As a rule, bail may be granted as a matter of right prior to conviction. Except (1)
    when it involves a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong; or (2) when the
    accused is a flight risk. In such cases, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion.
    In this case, Napoles was charged with Plunder which is punishable by reclusion
    perpetua. She cannot, thus, be admitted to bail when the evidence of her guilt is strong.
    The burden of proof to show such is on the prosecution. The prosecution can discharge
    its burden by proving that the evidence shows evident proof of guilt or a great
    presumption of guilt, which the Court defined in People v. Cabral as follows:
    “Proof evident” or “Evident proof’ in this connection has been held to mean clear,
    strong evidence which leads a well-guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that
    the offense has been committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent, and that he
    will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered. “Presumption great” exists
    when the circumstances testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be
    drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes
    all reasonable probability of any other conclusion. Even though there is a reasonable
    doubt as to the guilt of accused, if on an examination of the entire record the presumption
    is great that accused is guilty of a capital offense, bail should be refused.
    No grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. The
    Sandiganbayan scheduled hearings to allow the parties to submit their respective pieces
    of evidence. The prosecution submitted numerous testimonial and documentary evidence.
    Napoles, on the other hand, opted not to submit any evidence on her behalf and relied
    instead on the supposed weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. The evidence of the
    prosecution was summarized accordingly, effectively complying with the due process
    requirements. It even extensively discussed the available evidence in relation to the
    elements of Plunder, which the prosecution intended to prove point by point for purposes
    of demonstrating Napoles’ great presumption of guilt.

    You might also like