Breaking News: Bella Santos To Be Released On Bail

[i am bob]

Is there any information as to the present situation of the police chief (or similar title) who was fired for the poor investigation and or any others who have already lost their jobs due to this case?

 

I am asking to see if the loss of the job was just for show and that person is now re employed or transfered to a similar job, but the public was led to believe they were fired. It is not unusual to see multiple police officers and higher level management 'fired ' or relieved in articles in the press. I was wondering is these guys end up as mall cops or really just moved out of sight for a while.

 

Over time as I have been studying about the Philippines, I have discovered that, when it says a police officer is fired, it can mean one of two things...   

 

A junior police officer will be let go from the force ; or

 

A senior officer with a title or position will be fired from that title or position yet still maintain a comparable position and pay rate with that department or another location's police force.  Almost like a trade in baseball...   That goes for a lot of senior government positions.  One person was fired from a position in BI in Cebu and turned up working for BI in the country's capitol.  Those with money...  Those with power...   Those with connections...  None of these need fear losing out if they are fired.

[Markham]

I don't normally post copies of Court documents but this one you may find quite interesting. It was filed in Court earlier today by the Defence Team (the emphases are the drafter's, not mine):

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7^th Judicial Region

Branch 6

Cebu  City

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

                                           Plaintiff,                              CRIMINAL CASE NO. CBU-92962

-versus-                                                              For: Kidnapping with Homicide

 

IAN CHARLES GRIFFITHS &

BELLA RUBY SANTOS .

                                     Accused.

X------------------------------------X

 

OPPOSITION, COMMENTS & NOTICE FOR

POSSIBLE FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

 

COMES NOW the Accused, through the undersigned defense team, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers, THAT:

 

I- PROLEGOMENA

 

1.         Frame-up cases, just like this present case, are doomed to fail;

 

2.         A grant of bail is immediately executory unless the prosecution can secure a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] against such a grant order from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, for which there is none in this case;

 

3.         The grant of bail per Court Order April 10, 2013 is not the court’s error or fault but of the entire prosecution on the basis on a frame-up case using false and/or fictitious witnesses. Needless to emphasize, Atty. Dela Cerna knew beforehand and presented ex-convict Harem Puerto and Atty. Amit coached child witness Algen Bautista. Details of demolished credibility of all prosecution witnesses can readily be traced on court records such as the testimonies of “professional witnesses-police assets/lovers” Bansuan and Escultos and the ever inconsistent witness Cedeno, among others;

 

4.         Of the 9 witnesses presented, no one was considered by the court except Algen Bautista but on the same Order dated April 10, 2013 the Honorable Court discredited the said witness. Thus, it is good as no witness has ever seen the invitation.

 

II- SUBSTANTIVE DEFECTS OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

5.         No kidnapping was proven or concluded by the Honorable Court as elements of said felony are all inexistent in this case. The prosecution has a fine track record of twisting facts per court records. The abduction aspect of the felony was never proven during trial but only discredited all witnesses. In People versus Lito Ubongen Felwa G.R. No. 126024 April 20, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled, that:

 

“The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and restraint of the victim. A review of the prosecution's own narration of events shows that the prosecution did not establish actual confinement, detention or restraint of the child, which is the primary element of kidnapping. Since the evidence does not adequately prove that the victim was forcefully transported, locked up or restrained, the accused cannot be held liable for kidnapping. Here, there is no indubitable proof of a purposeful or knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim, hence there was no taking coupled with intent to complete the commission of the offense.

 

In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the latter's liberty, in any manner, needs to be established by indubitable proof, but in this case, we are constrained to rule against the prosecution's attempt to establish that appellant had intended to deprive the child of her liberty. For we find, as already stated, that the mother's testimony – based on what her child had told her – was obviously hearsay and could not establish what appellant's intent was.”

 

            And as applied to this present case, nothing was proven as against Santos and Griffiths as all alleged witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the invitation for a ride flunked big-time in the credibility test.

 

6.         The prosecution relied heavily on the positive identification of their false witnesses. That is what happened to the late Senator Ninoy Aquino who was positively identified by witnesses as the leader of a communist group. At 10:25 in the evening of 25 November 1977, Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino was pronounced guilty of subversion, murder & illegal possession of firearms by Military Commission No. 2, which was headed by Brig. Gen. Jose Syjuco, during the Martial Law regime of Ferdinand Marcos. Ninoy was sentenced to death by firing squad but the Supreme Court issued a restraining order against his execution and the rest is history.

 

7.         The filing of such motion for reconsideration did not establish motive, restore credibility of damaged witnesses and connect the dots during the so-called “mysterious period” per the April 10, 2013 Order. A reading of the motion for reconsideration does not offer or present additional new, clear and convincing evidence that would make the prosecution’s already weak evidence as strong, notwithstanding its being a prohibited pleading. Thus, it is a mere scrap of paper;

 

8.         These cases are verifiable: in People versus Montero, et al. docketed as DU-17602, RTC 28 of Mandaue City, for murder of PO2 Clint Canete, and in People versus Domie Oyao, docketed as CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 019229 to 30, RTC 27 of Lapu-lapu City, for violation of Sections 5 & 11, R.A. No. 9165, well-meaning resident trial prosecutors HENRY PASCUA and DINAH JANE GACETA-PORTUGAL respectively showed their expertise and knowledge in law and respect for the Lawyer’s Oath by not filing the prohibited and dilatory motion for reconsideration in relation to the bail grants; 

 

            Thus, on the substantive aspect of the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, it should be graded zero.

 

 III- PROCEDURAL DEFECTS OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

8.         It is basic that bail application in capital offenses is both summary and interlocutory in nature and as such a motion for reconsideration for its grant is a prohibited pleading. The same cannot stall posting of bail. A grant of bail is immediately executory unless the prosecution can secure a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] against such a grant order from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, for which there is none in this case;

 

9.         When the prosecution announced on April 13, 2013 that it already filed a motion for reconsideration on the grant of bail Order dated April 10, 2013, it did not personally furnish the counsel for the Accused in contrast to what the defense has been doing in personally serving pleadings to the state. As of this precise time of filing, no official copy of the motion for reconsideration was received by the defense team in its official address. There is already bad faith employed by the prosecution in filing said motion;

 

10.       Further, a grant of bail in a capital offense tackling merits of the case [which is neither medical nor humanitarian in character], such as this present case is favorable to the accused. A motion for reconsideration challenging the grant is unfavorable and even prejudicial to the Accused. This should not be allowed;

 

11.       Such motion for reconsideration is even dilatory in nature because in the event the prosecution will lose on that motion, it will just elevate the bail grant issue to higher courts and even Supreme Court thereby making the bail grant useless and unenforceable at the delight of the entire prosecution team;

 

12.       All told, the present motion for reconsideration is a clear violation of Lawyer’s Oath as it was filed maliciously in order to delay the release of Bella Ruby Santos from detention. It is also a face-saving measure by the prosecution notwithstanding its illegality apart from a clear showing of their gross ignorance of the law. Such motion for reconsideration is already a basis for a possible administrative cases before the Supreme Court as against the entire prosecution team, whether signatories or not;

 

Thus, on the procedural aspect of the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, it should be graded double zero.

 

IV- NOTICE

 

13.       This is also to be treated as a Notice for Possible Filing of Administrative Cases as against officers of the court who are responsible for the continued prosecutorial misconduct from the time this case was framed-up and up to this stage of the proceedings.

 

V-PRAYER

 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Accused most respectfully prays that prosecution’s motion for reconsideration BE DENIED outright for total lack of merit and a violation of Lawyer’s Oath and Accused Santos BE RELEASED from detention immediately after posting bail based on the April 10, 2013 Order.

 

Respectfully submitted this 15^th day of April 2013 at Cebu City , Philippines .

 

 

THE VRU&M  LEGAL TEAM

[VILLAGONZALO, REGIS, UBOD & MACEREN]

Room 302 K&J Bldg.

J. Llorente St. [beside Palladium Suites]

6000 Cebu City

Tel. No. [032] 255-1588

 

RAMESES VICTORIUS G. VILLAGONZALO

Attorney’s Roll Number: 48716, May 3, 2004

IBP Lifetime Roll No. 07841, 5/30/08

PTR No. 2681474, 01/02/13, Cebu Province

MCLE Compliance No. IV- 8607, 10/23/12 

e-mail address: ram_oakwood@yahoo.com

 

 

GERARD ANTHONY C. REGIS

Attorney’s Roll No. 59853, March 22, 2012

PTR No. 2681474, 01/02/13, Cebu Province

IBP Lifetime OR No. 882817, 06/1/12, Cebu City

MCLE Compliance No. IV- 8606, 10/23/12 

 

 

RONEL A. UBOD

Attorney’s Roll Number: 56118, April 29, 2009

IBP O.R. NO. 910109, 1/4/13

PTR No. 2682118, 1/4/13, Cebu Province

MCLE Compliance No. IV-0005901, May 22, 2012

 

 

[VI-PROOF OF SERVICE, NOTICE OF FILING/HEARING & EXPLANATION]

 

 

TO THOSE WHOSE NAMES APPEAR HEREUNDER:

 

 

HON. CLERK OF COURT

RTC 6, Cebu City 6000

RECEIVED:___________

 

 

HON. JEROME ABARCA

RESIDENT TRIAL PROSECUTOR

RTC 6, Cebu City 6000

RECEIVED:___________

 

 

SUPREME COURT

Committee on Bar Discipline

Padre Faura St.

1000 Manila City

Registry Receipt No.________,4/15/13

Capitol Post Office, Cebu City

 

Greetings:

 

 

Kindly take notice that the foregoing OPPOSITION, COMMENTS & NOTICE FOR POSSIBLE FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES will be submitted to the Honorable Court for consideration/resolution immediately upon receipt hereof sans appearance of counsel and/or further arguments.   

 

            A copy of this pleading is furnished to the adverse counsel via service in person.

 

            Thank you.        

 

                                                                               RAMESES VICTORIUS G. VILLAGONZALO

Until this filing, the Defence has maintained a low profile and sought not to enter into conflict with opposing Counsel, a strategy that has served it well throughout the proceedings thus far.

The so-called "mysterious period" mention in paragraph 7 refers to the seven hour period between 4pm when Ellah Joy was allegedly abducted and the estimated time of her death at 11pm that night. In her decision granting bail, the Judge noted that the Prosecution has failed to provide any explanation of where Ellah Joy was held during that time. Forensic tests carried out on the interior of the vehicle and on samples retrieved from Bella Santos' home provided no proof that Ellah Joy had ever been in either.

[Markham]

Is there any information as to the present situation of the police chief (or similar title) who was fired for the poor investigation and or any others who have already lost their jobs due to this case?

 

You mean Senior Superintendent Digal who was Director of the Cebu Province Police Office before his resignation was demanded by a furious Governor Gwen. I understand he is still a high-ranking Police Officer and may have been moved to another province. Not that he needs the money, you understand: around the time he lost his post, the Inquirer published a list of the 10 richest Police Officers in the Visayas and, from memory, Digal occupied the 5th position. However he is doomed to be in the limelight again quite shortly as he will just have received a witness summons - yup, he's being called by the Defence.

[samatm]

Is there any information as to the present situation of the police chief (or similar title) who was fired for the poor investigation and or any others who have already lost their jobs due to this case?

 

You mean Senior Superintendent Digal who was Director of the Cebu Province Police Office before his resignation was demanded by a furious Governor Gwen.

 

Mark,

 

So how has the Gov Gwen ouster affected this case?  Is the new  Gov taking personal interest in this case?

[Markham]

Mark,

 

So how has the Gov Gwen ouster affected this case?  Is the new  Gov taking personal interest in this case?

 

Former Governor Garcia invested and lost political capital in this case: she had both sets of defendants paraded before her in the presence of reporters and you may remember that she gave each of the three child witnesses in the Berger/Esdrelon case presents which the press reported as "bribery of witnesses". She lost more political capital as a result of that case collapsing and she demanded swift results from her new appointee as Director of the CPPO.

 

Governor Magpale by comparison has not made any public comment nor, as best we can tell, has she attempt to influence the case in any way whatsoever. However if she's canny and can read the present situation correctly, she should be considering the issuance of instructions to the NBI to investigate the case thoroughly using the principles of good solid detective work. After all, the CPPO/Task Force Ellah Joy can not be relied upon to provide anything better than a "frame-up" case as they have done twice before.

 

I do wonder whether a certain formerly prominent member of this Forum who was very sceptical of Santos'/Griffiths' innocence, partly on the grounds that the PNP couldn't possibly foul-up twice on the same case, will now have a change of heart.

[Markham]

Bella walked free shortly before 10 o'clock this morning and was met outside Naga Jail by her elder sister, her mother and other members of her immediate family. Her release follows the depositing of her Php500,000 Bail Bond with the Court in Cebu City on Monday afternoon and Judge Ester Veloso signed the Release Order at 8am this morning.

Last evening she was able to speak with her partner, Ian, for the first time in almost two years using a cellphone kindly provided by one of her prison guards

At Bella's request there will be no big celebration, no party or gathering to welcome her home nor does she intend to make any statements to the Press. However the family is organising a Thanksgiving Mass to be held at their local Church.

 

On Thursday of last week, the Prosecution lawyers Dela Cerna and Abarientos filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court. That Motion is set for Hearing this Friday.