SC: REBELLION CASE VS. THE BATASAN 6 IS A FIGMENT OF RAUL’S IMAGINATION
4 06 2007Poor Raul.
The Supreme Court delivered another humiliating blow to the Arroyo administration after it ordered the dismissal of the rebellion cases filed against party-list representatives Crispin Beltran, Satur Ocampo, Teddy Casiño, Joel Virador, Rafael Mariano and Liza Masa.
Citing the oppressive and hasty manner under which the cases were filed, the Supreme Court laid down the following reasons for its decision, viz:
1. The inquest conducted on Crispin Beltran for allegedly committing the crime of rebellion was illegal.
DOJ Circular No. 61 defines inquest as an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or not said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.
Beltran was actually charged in two cases, one for inciting to sedition and the other for rebellion. While the High Court did not seem to find any irregularity with respect to the inquest for inciting to sedition, the second inquest for rebellion failed to comply with the rules on warrantless arrests under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Peocedure in relation to DOJ Circular No. 61.
The joint affidavit of arrest merely implicated Beltran for inciting to sedition, as he allegedly made seditious speeches at a Quezon City rally on the 20th anniversary of the 1986 Edsa Revolution, the day prior to his unlawful arrest in Bulacan. It never made mention of Beltran committing in their presence the crime of rebellion nor was there any allegation in the said affidavit that the arresting officers had probable cause to believe (based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances) that Beltran had just committed the crime.
In other words, there was no basis to hold an inquest for rebellion because the same could only be had if there was a prior valid warrantless arrest under said Section 5. The Court noted that the prosecutors should have first determined if the warrantless arrest (for rebellion) was effected in accordance with the rules before proceeding with the inquest proper. Had they religiously followed this basic procedure, there would not have been any inquest in the first place for they would have known by then that there was no ground to further detain Beltran and consequently hold him for trial.
2. There was no probable cause to indict Beltran for rebellion.
As a rule, the determination of probable cause for purposes of filing a case is left to the sound discretion of the investigating fiscal. Courts do not generally interfere with this prosecutorial function.
In the instant case, however, the Supreme Court took a more active stance. It exercised its review power under Rule 65 and reversed the prosecutors’ findings. The Court noticed that the prosecutors gravely abused their discretion when they proceeded to charge Beltran even if the evidence was clearly insufficient to support a finding of probable cause.
Guess what. Either the prosecutors were too incompetent to make out a case or they were pressured by the DOJ Secretary to file a purely baseless charge. As succinctly explained in the decision, nowhere does the evidence point to any of the elements of rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. The preliminary investigation of the other party-list representatives, also charged with rebellion, was fraught with obvious irregularities.
The High Court observed that the procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigations was not “scrupulously” followed by the panel of prosecutors as outlined in Section 3, Rule 112. And rightfully so, for it would appear that Gloria Arroyo, through the DOJ, is using “the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindicative manner” to harrass and get back at her critics by falsely and maliciously accusing them of a crime under a procedure tainted with bias and prejudice.
The Supreme Court even went as far as castigating the Justice Secretary for his manifest partiality and evident bad faith, reminding him of the court’s earlier pronouncement in the case of Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan:
We cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective of observing the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may be public’s perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced.
Will the Justice Secretary heed the Court’s admonition? Knowing Raul, he obviously won’t. Yesterday, the Solicitor General already made known her disappointment by saying that “time-honored and well-established principles on criminal law and procedure were seemingly trampled upon” in the High Court’s decision.
Really? Look who’s talking.
Click here for the full text of this landmark decision. (images above taken from zumel.com and anakpawis.com)
If you listen to these maniacs they make it appear as if they were the aggrieved parties here. It’s amazing that they have the gall to say that the SC decision “trampled” or the “dire consequence” to their “time honored principles” when the SC clearly spelled out their politically motivated indictment and procedural idiocy. Of note here is the trivializing of the case when they furnished the “evidence” to the media before giving the “accused” to examine their evidence……… it is very obvious that their ego supersedes them desperately seeking their 3 minute sound byte fame, lol.
I’d love to see Norbie, Raul and Puno face the new CA. I’m sure they’ll be miserable afterwards. Raul was once suspended on the grounds of ignorance of the law. His abuse of the law should now warrant a greater punishment. Disbarment should be in order.
P. Observer,
That is basically the “spin” of the administration, just like their recent pronouncement that they were allegedly the ones who were “cheated” in the elections. I’ve read the SC decision at least 3 times and I honestly can’t find any “trampling upon of time-honored principles” as ridiculously claimed by the Solicitor General. On the contrary, it was Raul Gonzalez who made a mockery of the criminal justice system by filing trumped up charges for the sole purpose of harrassing GMA’s critics.
Schumey,
Instead of disbarment, sana kunin na lang siya ni Lord. LOL! Seriously, a disbarment case will be a welcome development.
Agnes Devanadera is a changed woman overnight. Having known her first as a good municipal mayor in Sampaloc, Quezon and steadily climbed the ladder under GMA, the latest her being appointed as Solicitor General to us is a big turn around in her character. Instead of just leaving to Raul Gonzalest the usual out of this world pronouncements, she decided to enter into the fray with her own epithet. It seems, the Gloria virus has infected her to the bone.
It’s kind of you to attribute the actions of Raul Gonzalez to a figment of his imagination. He is a whore , he knew exactly what and why. Unfortunately, he is not a ery good whore as he didn’t know how to do it.