Jake Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 Prosecutors can't declare Berger, Esdrelon innocentCEBU, Philippines - The Provincial Prosecutor’s Office denied the motion filed by the mistaken suspects in the abduction and killing of six-year-old Ellah Joy Pique for the issuance of an amended resolution declaring them innocent of the crime. Provincial Prosecutor Jane Pepita Petralba approved the comment of prosecutors Marlon Atillo and Marvin dela Peña to deny the motion filed by Sven Erik Berger and Karen Esdrelon as their office was only tasked to determine any probable cause for indictment against the couple.“To categorically declare herein respondents as innocent of the crime charged against them is beyond the scope, function and jurisdiction of this Office as it has no authority to do so,” their comment read.The prosecutors said the concern of Berger and Esdrelon that the word “dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence” gave negative connotation to them cannot convince the office to change their resolution as any finding made after a preliminary investigation does not destroy the constitutional presumption of innocence of persons accused.“We find that the evidence against the respondents is insufficient to indict them of the crime charged. This goes to show that the movants could not even be formally charged in court because the investigating prosecutors did not find the evidence submitted to them sufficient to support an indictment,” comment reads.Berger and Esdrelon filed the motion before the Provincial prosecutor’s Office assisted by their lawyer Glenn Villariza.They alleged that the phrase “dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence” still carries negative impact, especially in Norway. I just don't get it......isn't this the same provincial prosecutor to prosecute the couple to begin with?? And now through a mouthful of legal jargon, this same office refuses to declare them innocent based on "insufficient evidence" stated by their own investigators? They say it's "beyond the scope"....etc. Next time I take a dump, I'll be sure to flush it twice to make it all the way to this office. They're so fullof chit, especially the way they write their argument. What the hell is a "movants" anyway? Pinchin' a loaf -- Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 What it appears the prosecutor is saying is that there's no legal criteria for declaring them "innocent". Is it not the same in the US? They have filed a $60 million dollar lawsuit against the government, that should be interesting. If they had probable cause (eyewitlesses) I would think it will be a very uphill battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hounddriver Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 there's no legal criteria for declaring them "innocent" That part does not make sense to me. I bet they could declare Obama innocent, for example, so just how big and how far away do you need to be before they can declare you innocent. Remember there are witnesses and video to show these people were nowhere near the crime scene. I guess what I am saying is that no one on this forum is innocent under the same criteria. The prosecutor is saying that the people in question, in fact all of us too, are guilty until proven innocent and that just does not wash. The Philippine people, in general, need to stand up and say "You are innocent BECAUSE there is no evidence that you are guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 there's no legal criteria for declaring them "innocent" That part does not make sense to me. I bet they could declare Obama innocent, for example, so just how big and how far away do you need to be before they can declare you innocent. Remember there are witnesses and video to show these people were nowhere near the crime scene. I guess what I am saying is that no one on this forum is innocent under the same criteria. The prosecutor is saying that the people in question, in fact all of us too, are guilty until proven innocent and that just does not wash. The Philippine people, in general, need to stand up and say "You are innocent BECAUSE there is no evidence that you are guilty.I was referring strictly to the legal basis of pronouncing them innocent. The prosecutor could make a public statement to the public via the media that the office believes them innocent and that would be the right thing to do (imo) but that may have to do with the loss of face thing. The fact that they were charged palls in comparison to them being held for several weeks after there was irrefutable proof that they couldn't have done it. That's what bothers me the most about this. I'm new here and learning every day how different things really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted August 5, 2011 Posted August 5, 2011 Provincial Prosecutor Petralba could have acknowledged that theirs' was a simple case of mistaken identity but she chose to toe the "party line" thus saving face all round. Her handling of this request and the whole attitude of the Police and Prosecutors in dealing with Berger and Esdrelon will be borne in mind by the British authorities should they decide to re-open the case against Ian Griffiths. In so doing, not only will she make Berger more determined to seek natural justice but she's likely to have nixed any chance of Griffiths being brought to trial. A double-whammy dealt to Ella Joy. Well done madam prosecutor. Mark 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts