Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla on Saturday questioned the granting of bail to some accused in graft cases before the Sandiganbayan, calling for convicted individuals to serve their jail terms more swiftly.
“Sabi ko, marami naman ang nasisintensiyahan. Maraming nasisintensiyahan ang Sandiganbayan pero halos kaunti lang ang nakakulong. Paano? Sinasabi, meron daw tayong presumption of innocence at right to bail,” Remulla said on his radio program.
(Many are being sentenced. The Sandiganbayan sentences many, but only a few end up in jail. How is that? They say there is a presumption of innocence and a right to bail.)
“Pero ‘pag ika’y na-convict na sa lower court, convicted na sa Sandiganbayan, na-convict na ng RTC dito sa graft, dapat iyan kulong ka na. Ang problema, medyo sobrang bait ng korte at hindi ginagawa ‘yung trabaho na ipakulong ‘yung dapat ipinakukulong,” he added.
(But once you have been convicted by the lower court, by the Sandiganbayan, or by the RTC in a graft case, you should already be in jail. The problem is that the courts are being too lenient and are not doing their job of jailing those who should be imprisoned.)
Remulla proposed that bail be set at an amount commensurate with the damage caused by the accused.
“Grant sila nang grant ng bail. Ang bababa pa ng piyansa. Dapat kasi diyan, ‘pag na-convict na ‘yung tao at talagang may petition for bail, ang bail should be set, if ever kung iga-grant mo ‘yan, at the cost of damage na ginawa ng tao.”
(They keep granting bail, and the bail amounts are even low. If a person has been convicted and there is a petition for bail, the bail, if granted, should be set based on the cost of the damage caused by the person.)
Remulla added that bail should be paid through a cash bond rather than a bail bond.
The Ombudsman said his office had requested an inventory of individuals convicted by the Sandiganbayan, including whether they had served time in jail.
Remulla also criticized what he described as the apparent leniency of the judiciary when accused individuals file motions for reconsideration involving bail.
“Basta’t nagkaroon ng motion for reconsideration on a grant of bail, parang walang deadline ang judiciary… May rules sila na dapat sinusunod, hihingi sila permiso, ipapa-extend nila. Pero paano ‘yan, uupuan na lang nila forever? Umaabot ng 15 taon ‘yung kaso, nakaupo lang,” he said.
“Once a motion for reconsideration is filed against a grant of bail, it seems as though there is no deadline for the judiciary. They have rules that must be followed, but they ask for permission and seek extensions.
“What happens then? Are they just going to sit on the case forever? Some cases drag on for as long as 15 years without a resolution.)
GMA News Online has sought comment from the Sandiganbayan and will update this story once a response is received.— MCG, GMA News
