Press freedom anchor of democracy
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Hole of Justice: Legal Niceties of Police Cases
Hole of Justice: Legal Niceties of Police Cases: Hole of Justice Peter G. Jimenea Legal Niceties of Police Cases T he enf...
Legal Niceties of Police Cases
Hole of Justice
Peter G. Jimenea
Legal Niceties of Police Cases
The enforcement of law by our police officers should be in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play. Extreme enforcement of law may lead to injustice. (Berico vs CA, 225 SCRA 562).
This is why the Bill of Rights in Article III of the Constitution occupies a position of primacy as the fundamental law way above the articles on government powers. Here’s a lesson for the heart.
On August 6, 2008, P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero, Chief of Police of Ajuy, Iloilo and two other police officers arrested in Barangay Lanjagan, Edito Aguillon, the barangay captain for carrying an Armalite rifle with license card but no Permit To Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR).
Aguillon was detained at the police station but posted a cash bond the very next day for his temporary liberty. After 6 days, a case for illegal possession of firearm was filed against him by the arresting officers.
Aguillon filed his Counter-Affidavit that he was authorized by law to carry his firearm within the barangay but unlawfully arrested and detained by the policemen for illegal possession of firearm.
On September 10, 2008, the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence and recommends the return of rifle to Aguillon. The said Resolution was forwarded to Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro for recommending approval.
On February 17, 2009, Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro approved the Resolution, ruling that Aguillon did not commit the crime as he has a license for his rifle. Artllero however, did not stop there. On why, he has yet to say.
On June 22, 2009, to avail copy of Aguillon’s counter–affidavit, a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was filed by Artillero. But It was denied by the Ombudsman in his Order dated July 23, 2009. Thus, a Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was filed on Dec. 8, 2009.
Petitioner argues that public respondents’ act to dismiss the criminal complaint based on insufficiency of evidence is contrary to PD 1866 in its Implementing Rules & Regulations (IRR). He was not furnished too, with copy of the September 10 Resolution of the prosecutor. These started the niceties of legal exchanges at the Supreme Court.
Petitioner cited the infringement of his Constitutional right to have a copy of the counter-affidavit of Aguillon being a party litigant. Thus under Sec. 3(c), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, he was denied due process.
The Ombudsman argues that he was not denied due process as the MR filed by Petitioner asking for copy of the barangay captain’s counter-affidavit has already cured the procedural defect in this case.
As to Petitioner’s complaint that he was not furnished with a copy of the Resolution of September 10, 2008, common sense dictates it cannot attain finality until approved by the Office of the Ombudsman. Still he can avail of the copy by filing an MR which he did.
According to Petitioner, the assailed Resolutions issued by the prosecutor and the Ombudsman were contrary to law and/or jurisprudence and with grave abuse of discretion by failing to consider Memo Circular No. 2000-016 on the IRR issued by the PNP for PD 1866.
The Court asserts that preliminary investigation is not a trial but merely preparatory and its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
It finds merit, too, in public respondents’ contention that the authority of Aguillon to carry firearm outside his residence was not based on the IRR of PD 1866 but rooted on authority given to him by the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1983.
When Congress passed R.A. 7160 (LGC of 1991), it retains the provision of Sec. 88(3) in B.P. 337 of the LGC of 1983. It reads, “In the performance of his peace and order functions, the punong barangay is entitled to possess and carry firearm within his territorial jurisdiction subject to appropriate rules and regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms.”
Finally, the SC dismissed the Petition of Artillero. It affirmed the September 10, 2008 Resolution of Provincial Prosecutor Bernabe Dusaban as well as the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman dated 17 February and 23 July 2009 respectively. (G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012).
<photo id="1" />
Peter G. Jimenea
Legal Niceties of Police Cases
The enforcement of law by our police officers should be in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play. Extreme enforcement of law may lead to injustice. (Berico vs CA, 225 SCRA 562).
This is why the Bill of Rights in Article III of the Constitution occupies a position of primacy as the fundamental law way above the articles on government powers. Here’s a lesson for the heart.
On August 6, 2008, P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero, Chief of Police of Ajuy, Iloilo and two other police officers arrested in Barangay Lanjagan, Edito Aguillon, the barangay captain for carrying an Armalite rifle with license card but no Permit To Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR).
Aguillon was detained at the police station but posted a cash bond the very next day for his temporary liberty. After 6 days, a case for illegal possession of firearm was filed against him by the arresting officers.
Aguillon filed his Counter-Affidavit that he was authorized by law to carry his firearm within the barangay but unlawfully arrested and detained by the policemen for illegal possession of firearm.
On September 10, 2008, the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence and recommends the return of rifle to Aguillon. The said Resolution was forwarded to Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro for recommending approval.
On February 17, 2009, Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro approved the Resolution, ruling that Aguillon did not commit the crime as he has a license for his rifle. Artllero however, did not stop there. On why, he has yet to say.
On June 22, 2009, to avail copy of Aguillon’s counter–affidavit, a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was filed by Artillero. But It was denied by the Ombudsman in his Order dated July 23, 2009. Thus, a Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was filed on Dec. 8, 2009.
Petitioner argues that public respondents’ act to dismiss the criminal complaint based on insufficiency of evidence is contrary to PD 1866 in its Implementing Rules & Regulations (IRR). He was not furnished too, with copy of the September 10 Resolution of the prosecutor. These started the niceties of legal exchanges at the Supreme Court.
Petitioner cited the infringement of his Constitutional right to have a copy of the counter-affidavit of Aguillon being a party litigant. Thus under Sec. 3(c), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, he was denied due process.
The Ombudsman argues that he was not denied due process as the MR filed by Petitioner asking for copy of the barangay captain’s counter-affidavit has already cured the procedural defect in this case.
As to Petitioner’s complaint that he was not furnished with a copy of the Resolution of September 10, 2008, common sense dictates it cannot attain finality until approved by the Office of the Ombudsman. Still he can avail of the copy by filing an MR which he did.
According to Petitioner, the assailed Resolutions issued by the prosecutor and the Ombudsman were contrary to law and/or jurisprudence and with grave abuse of discretion by failing to consider Memo Circular No. 2000-016 on the IRR issued by the PNP for PD 1866.
The Court asserts that preliminary investigation is not a trial but merely preparatory and its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
It finds merit, too, in public respondents’ contention that the authority of Aguillon to carry firearm outside his residence was not based on the IRR of PD 1866 but rooted on authority given to him by the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1983.
When Congress passed R.A. 7160 (LGC of 1991), it retains the provision of Sec. 88(3) in B.P. 337 of the LGC of 1983. It reads, “In the performance of his peace and order functions, the punong barangay is entitled to possess and carry firearm within his territorial jurisdiction subject to appropriate rules and regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms.”
Finally, the SC dismissed the Petition of Artillero. It affirmed the September 10, 2008 Resolution of Provincial Prosecutor Bernabe Dusaban as well as the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman dated 17 February and 23 July 2009 respectively. (G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012).
<photo id="1" />
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)