|
THE case “People v Gonzales and Buenaflor” has for the past two
years been taxing the legal brains of an array of lawyers and
arousing the pens of countless newspaper columnists. But as the case
made its laborious journey through the hall of jurisprudence all the
way up to the Supremes one constant remained—the family of the
brutally murdered Frederico Delgado was mourning the untimely death
of a beloved sibling and determined to ensure justice was done to
bring the alleged killers to book.
But in the latest twist to this case—which has
had more than its fair share of twists and turns with many of them,
quite amazingly, going the way of the accused—the Supreme Court
ruled that the Solicitor-General had filed his comment before it
outside the time granted, and—acquiescing with the defense
argument that the case couldn’t proceed without the participation
of the Sol-Gen.—dismissed the case.
Thus the tearful, and at times enraged, sense of
frustration felt by the Delgados is patently understandable
considering that from the time the case first entered the domain of
the City Prosecutor and then proceeded to the Regional Trial Court,
Department of Justice, Court of Appeals and finally the High Court
it has been argued on and resolved mostly in a litany of
technicalities.
To recall this sensational case: It began with
Federico Delgado’s grisly murder on the night of March 10, 2007.
The account of the incident as reported to the police by eyewitness
Annalisa Pesico became the object of a criminal complaint filed by
the Delgado family against the accused, Luisito Gonzales and Antonio
Buenaflor.
As early as that stage of the proceedings, the
Delgados submitted a comprehensive memorandum detailing the evidence
that was available to support the case against the accused,
featuring the positive identification made of Gonzales and Buenaflor
by their very own “crying lady”—Pesico, who was assaulted
together with Delgado on the night of the killing.
The accused Gonzales, grandson of former
Philippine President Elpidio Quirino, who was conspicuously absent
from the proceedings, filed a counter-affidavit through his lawyers
during the preliminary investigation which stated the classic
defense of alibi, but with an unusual twist—accompanying his
statement were twenty-eight affidavits supposedly made by hospital
staff of the Makati Medical Center, claiming that he was confined to
the exclusive drug-rehabilitation ward in the hospital basement on
the night of the murder.
The Delgados, however, were confident that the
case would proceed to trial because, in addition to their evidence,
there is a time honored principle of law that states that the
defenses of alibi and denial are insufficient to defeat positive
identification by an eyewitness. Furthermore, the twenty-eight
affidavits submitted by the accused are the equivalent of mere
hearsay, as the alleged witnesses did not even present themselves
before the prosecutor, as required by law.
In spite of all this, the Acting Manila City
Prosecutor ruled that there was no probable cause to file the case
in court. So the Delgados brought the case before the Secretary of
Justice on two main grounds: First they assailed the fiscal
going against years of decisions by the Supreme Court which never
fails to uphold the principle that positive identification by a
credible witness is always given more weight by the courts than the
defense of alibi.
Second, the Delgados contended that the fiscal
should never even have considered the twenty-eight statements of
hospital staff, as numerous as they might be, as they are all marred
by crucial violations of the law on sworn affidavits.
After a careful study, the prosecutor’s ruling
was reversed by then-Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera,
on the strength of the positive identification of the accused by the
eyewitness. As a result of the ruling two charges for the crimes of
murder and less serious physical injuries were filed, the former
with the Regional Trial Court, and the latter with the Metropolitan
Trial Court.
Notably, the Office of the Solicitor-General
also filed its comment supporting the finding of probable cause
against the accused.
Immediately thereafter, the accused filed a
petition for certiorari in order to assail the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice, claiming grave abuse of discretion. This
Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals was decided upon
by the said tribunal on March 18, 2008, affirming the Justice
Secretary’s decision based on the lack of grave abuse because the
essential facts of the case were considered. Further, the Court of
Appeals found no patent misappreciation of facts.
The accused filed a Motion of Reconsideration,
which became the subject of Oral Argumentation before the Court of
Appeals. During the interregnum, the accused Luisito surrendered
himself to the custody of the National Bureau of Investigation by
virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court
judge upon the filing of the information in court. Accused Buenaflor
was, on the other hand, arrested by the Crime Investigation and
Detection Group operatives.
In a strange and inexplicable turn of events, on
July 29, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued its Amended Decision,
which ordered the following:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. This
Court’s decision dated March 18, 2008, as well as the assailed
Resolutions October 15 and 26, 2007 of public respondent Acting
Secretary of Justice in IS no. 07-C-04721 are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The information charging the petitioners of Murder and
Less Serious Physical Injuries, as well as the warrants of arrest
issued pursuant thereto, are hereby ordered QUASHED and
DISMISSED.“
The shell-shocked Delgados took the Amended
Decision before the Supreme Court. They claimed that, contrary to
the object of a petition for certiorari, there was absolutely
nothing in the Amended Decision dealing with grave abuse of
discretion. They argued that it is a settled principle that a
petition for certiorari must determine whether or not the judge (in
this case the Secretary of Justice) acted with grave abuse of
discretion.
The Amended Decision was completely silent on
that point, yet managed to suddenly accept as plausible the
“doubts” raised by the accused as basis for reversing itself.
Even more surprising was the fact that the Court of Appeals ordered
the Regional Trial Court, which had taken no part in the proceedings
before the Court of Appeals, to have the criminal information
nullified and warrants recalled. According to our legal sources this
transgressed the rules on jurisdiction and violated other
long-standing doctrines of the Court.
The Supreme Court ordered the case to go through
oral argumentation with the parties submitting their arguments in
memoranda afterwards. But as we pointed out earlier, the
Solicitor-General filed its comment to the proceedings outside of
the time granted by the court. Its comment was subsequently refused
admission.
Interestingly, the SC decision contains the
dissenting opinion of Justice Velasco, who disagreed with the
majority because he firmly believed that the factual situation of
the case would result in a denial of due process to the Delgados if
their case were not to be heard on the merits.
In fact, that is all the Delgados are asking
for. And it would appear that up to now mere legal technicalities
have been cited to deny them of that unalienable right.
rjottings@yahoo.com
|
