This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Graft convict Imelda Marcos wants to go straight to the Supreme Court to appeal the verdict of the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan.
In a Notice of Appeal filed before the Sandiganbayan’s 5th Division on Monday, November 26, the Ilocos Norte congresswoman “requested that the records of the instant case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.”
This skips the usual process of filing an appeal before the Sandiganbayan. Marcos has not yet filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the anti-graft court, and the 5th Division has not even decided yet on her appeal for post-conviction remedies.
In a statement on Tuesday, November 27, the 5th Division said Marcos’ notice of appeal is premature.
“The Notice of Appeal filed by Marcos is premature as the Court has not yet resolved the Motion for Leave to avail of post-conviction remedies. Therefore the Court cannot take action on the same,” said the court.
Even then, she has been granted bail of P150,000 to enjoy temporary freedom despite conviction. The court had found her guilty of 7 counts of graft for illegally maintaining private Swiss foundations for the “private benefit” of the Marcos family.
“To date, Motion for Leave filed by the Accused has not yet been resolved. With due respect, the Accused submits that the Decision convicting her is contrary to facts, law and jurisprudence,” Marcos said.
In the Motion for Leave, the Sandiganbayan’s 5th Division must decide if Marcos is entitled to the actual post-conviction bail, even though she was allowed to post bail while awaiting that decision.
One of the standards in granting remedies like post-conviction bail is whether the absence on the day of promulgation was justifiable. In Marcos’ case, she was grilled by the 5th Division for citing two conflicting reasons for her absence.
The Sandiganbayan’s internal rules provide for the filing of notice of appeal, but under the Rules of Court, convicted persons who were absent on the day of their promulgation shall seek the permission of the court to avail of post-conviction remedies first. – Rappler.com