Napoles Digest

FACTS:
Napoles was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan and placed under
preventive detention, prompting Napoles to apply for bail.
The Napoles camp did not present any evidence at the bail hearings but when the
Sandiganbayan denied the petition for bail, Napoles contended that the denial of the
application was a grave abuse of discretion because the prosecution failed to adduce
direct proof connecting Napoles to the NGOs involved in the misappropriation nor proof
of any agreement with Enrile to obtain kickbacks from the implementation of the former
senator’s PDAF projects.
Napoles also assailed the credibility of the whistleblowers and argued that they were also
conspirators and their testimonies should be regarded with grave suspicion as they come
from a polluted source.
Whether there is strong evidence of guilt on the part of Napoles was resolved by the
Sandiganbayan in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, and jurisprudence in the
application for bail in capital cases
RULING
Yes.
The Court debunked the contentions in the Napoles petition through application of the
jurisprudential standards enunciated from its previous rulings in Cortes v. Catral, People
v. Cabral and United States v. Remigio.
In Cortes v. Judge Catral, the Court declared the duties of the trial court in cases of an
application for bail :
1. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the

application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution
refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound
discretion; (Sections 7 and 8, supra).
2. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the
summary of evidence of the prosecution;
3. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused
upon the approval of the bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise
petition should be denied.”
4.
In determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong, evident proof is required to
which People v. Cabral provides an instructive definition:
By judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of whether

proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. “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 that accused is guilty
of a capital offense, bail should be refused.”
he Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan adhered to the abovementioned standards.
The SB conducted hearings to allow the parties to submit their evidence but Napoles
opted not to submit while the prosecution presented numerous documentary and
testimonial evidence to prove that Napoles’ guilt was strong and warranted denial of the
bail application.
Since conspiracy is alleged as the mode of committing plunder, the Court held that it was
“unnecessary to find direct proof of any agreement as long as the prosecution was able to
prove that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment, the conspiracy may be inferred even if no
actual meeting among them was proven.”
The Court found that the prosecution was able to prove implied conspiracy through
various documentary and testimonial evidence. It is at this juncture that the doctrine of
interlocking confession by the whistleblowers was applied by the Court [I recommend
reading pages 10-16 of the decision to appreciate the doctrine].
Assailing the credibility of the whistleblowers did not help Napoles’ case at all. The
Court cited United States v. Remigio on the application of the true doctrine governing the
testimony of accomplices, which although polluted, may be sufficient whether
corroborated or not:

Napoles Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Napoles Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Napoles Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS:

1. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the

By judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of whether

You might also like