Press freedom anchor of democracy
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea The Ombudsman Should Know “Injustice lies fairly in delayed decision than an erroneous ...
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea The Ombudsman Should Know “Injustice lies fairly in delayed decision than an erroneous ...
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea The Ombudsman Should Know “Injustice lies fairly in delayed decision than an erroneous ...
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Should Know: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea The Ombudsman Should Know “Injustice lies fairly in delayed decision than an erroneous ...
The Ombudsman Should Know
Hole of Justice
By
Peter G. Jimenea
The Ombudsman Should Know
“Injustice lies fairly in delayed decision
than an erroneous one which can be appealed immediately, subjected to media and
academic scrutiny or can be elevated to the Higher Court of public opinion.”
An Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) was filed in 2004 against
then Iloilo City Mayor now Cong. Jerry P. Trenas, Melchor Tan, Catherine
Tingson, Edwin Bravo, and contractor Alex Trinidad. The others are former Mayor Mansueto Malabor and
his former staff.
It is hard to believe that high profile local government officials may
easily yield to temptation of greed. However, this P137M graft case that has consumed
the city for years seems not good for the Office of the Ombudsman. From 2004 to
2009, no probable cause has been found against then Mayor Trenas & Co.
Graft investigators are mostly lawyers. On why they all failed to find
probable cause against the mayor, only God knows. But a discreet and reasonable
fish vendor can even ascertain that the unauthorized payment of Mayor Trenas to
the contractor is already embraced in R.A. 3019. So who are they kidding?
Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that most likely
than not a crime has been committed. I never see officials so derelict and
irresolute in the performance of duty than these graft investigators from the Ombudsman
office. I say this as one thing we all abhor is their large propensity to selective
prosecution.
Former Mayor Mansueto Malabor only signed the contract before turning it
over to Mayor Trenas for implementation but was indicted. Trenas who spend almost
all the money for the failed project was spared. This is not what I think the Ombudsman’s
business is all about. Basi siguro dala ini sang “malandi nga climate change ”
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved the resolution of underlings
to set aside the case against Trenas & Co. without giving it a second look.
It gives us an impression without affirming the perception that investigators
assigned to this case have –less-working brains. See how the Resolution reads en
toto;
“The Information accusing Jerry P.
Trenas, Melchor Tan, Edwin Bravo, Catherine Tingson and Alex Trinidad for
Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 3019 as amended, for causing the release of
the P43,807,733.33 for construction works of the ICHP in Pavia, Iloilo, despite
reports that substandard materials were used in the project and defects,
deficiencies and lapses in the work were noted, is HEREBY SET ASIDE.”
Set aside? What a shame! SEC. 16, ART. Iii of the 1987 Constitution
reads: “All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial or administrative bodies.” Yet, they failed to expedite
this case with reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on
all complaints lodged before their office.
The failure of graft investigators to find probable cause against the
mayor after six years is what irate me. They didn’t study their role and the
responsibilities and accountabilities attendant thereto. They should know that It
is not the duty of the respondent to go to Court to follow up his case. It is
the duty of the State!
Defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty,
as well as the duty to insure that the trial is consistent with due process.
The attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper or prejudice the defense
should be weighted heavily against the State! Lex reprobate moram – the law disapproves of delay! (G.R. No.
191871).
In delay, it is the government that must bear the burden of proving its
case beyond reasonable doubt. What if the witnesses in the case have gone away
without informing the litigants? This makes impossible for the government to
carry its burden. Culpa lata dolo a equiparatur – “gross negligence is equivalent
to malice or intentional wrong.” (Balatbat v. CA, 261 SCRA 128)
The Constitution and the Rules do not require impossibilities or
extraordinary efforts, diligence or exertion from the courts or prosecutors,
nor contemplate that such right shall deprive the State of the reasonable
opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.
As vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy, the Office of the Ombudsman
must have a system of officials’ accountability to ensure that cases before it
are resolved with reasonable dispatch to equally expose those who are
responsible for its delays, as it ought to determine in this case.
The failed Pavia Housing Project of the Iloilo City Government is a story
that won’t go away. It depicts the Ombudsman as a government office with graft
investigators who specialized in a probe-in-eternity, delay resulting to more
delays, or mora decidendi - delay in
deciding cases. This deliberate misdeed eventually redounds to miscarriage of
justice. (370 SCRA 658).
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Hole of Justice: Business Behind Bars
Hole of Justice: Business Behind Bars: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Business Behind Bars “In underworld business, criminals have no way to approach the Court...
Hole of Justice: Business Behind Bars
Hole of Justice: Business Behind Bars: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Business Behind Bars “In underworld business, criminals have no way to approach the Court...
Business Behind Bars
Hole
of Justice
By
Peter G. Jimenea
“In underworld business, criminals have
no way to approach the Court of law for the settlement of differences. Death is
their logical solution to all judicial problems.”
On
April 29, 2015, an inmate (name withheld to protect the family) at the Bureau
of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) Ungka District Jail in Jaro, Iloilo
City, was reported to have committed suicide inside his cell.
Three
days later, May 3, 2015, another inmate in the same compound was reported to have
also committed suicide. But they were suspect-victims of foul play due to traces
of torture and punctured wounds on the head of one.
This
reminds me of the arrest of notorious Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo”
Guzman of the dreaded Sinaloa Cartel on February 2015, this year, in Northern
Mexico. He is a powerful drug lord and kingpin of his time facing multiple indictments
in the US Court.
Unlike
the Chinese Triads, Mexican drug lords are pompous, noisy but also bold-players.
Mexicans have that large propensity to engage their rivals in cut-throat
competition rather than cooperation. A practice no longer in the Sicilian Mafia’s
mindset syndrome.
Records
show that Sinaloa Cartel grabbed control of Carrillo Fuentes’ criminal
organization in Ciudad Juárez, a much fought over entry point across from El
Paso, Texas. Gabino Salas Valenciano is El Chapo’s point man running the
cartel’s business in Ciudad Juárez.
One
of his jobs was to hire arms dealers, drug traffickers and assassins in the
U.S. to eliminate debtors who did not pay their debts. The story described drug
trafficker Sergio Saucedo’s death. The latter is suspect to have unpaid debts
with El Chapo and had tried to swindle him.
On August 5, 2009, at Sierra Blanca,
Texas inspection station, agents stopped two persons with a trailer containing
303.9 kilos of marijuana that Saucedo was trying to smuggle from Mexico. This
tells Saucedo’s downfall and assassination.
A month later, on September 3, a
group of masked gunmen from the U.S.–broke into a house in Horizon City, in the
suburbs of El Paso, and kidnapped Saucedo in a maroon-colored Ford Expedition. But
their three unmasked accomplice were arrested for questioning.The U.S. District Court of Western Texas, shows that in 2009 the three suspect-defendants Cesar Piñeda, Francisco Javier “El Pichas” Pulido, and Carlos Cuellar admitted they were paid $250,000 by Valenciano for delivering Saucedo.
Pineda testified, “The men wearing masks, moved Saucedo from their car and put him in the rear seat of the car I was driving. I drove to Mexico across the Fabens Port of Entry, then to La Cabaña, a weapons storage house, in the Juarez Valley where a group of ten armed men are waiting.”
Pineda claimed another defendant Pulido told him that Saucedo had stolen more than 600 pounds of marijuana and that Salas Valenciano, El Chapo’s man in Ciudad Juárez, paid $250,000 to US based hoodlums for the kidnapping of Saucedo.
Pineda was arrested in Texas on May 2011, plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit homicide in foreign country, sentenced to 240 months in prison. Cuellar was arrested October of the same year for trafficking marijuana, sentenced to 150 months in prison. Pulido was captured in April 2013 in Northern Mexico and extradited to the U.S.
Five days later after his kidnapping, on September 8, 2009, Saucedo’s body was found on the banks of the Rio Grande river semi-nude, with signs of torture and with cut-off hands placed over his chest, a sign of not paying debts.
Salas Valenciano, El Chapo’s representative, ran the cartel business in Ciudad Juárez while the latter is in prison. The man is remorseless and has the temerity to hire arm dealers, drug traffickers and assassins to deliver this message to debtors – “TILL DEBT DO US PART.”
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Case of Gov. Tupas
Hole of Justice: The Ombudsman Case of Gov. Tupas: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea The Ombudsman Case of Gov. Tupas A case for Violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft an...
The Ombudsman Case of Gov. Tupas
Hole
of Justice
By
Peter G. JimeneaThe Ombudsman Case of Gov. Tupas
A
case for Violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) was
filed in the Office of the Ombudsman against then Iloilo Gov. Niel Tupas in 2004.
But the lucky awardee to quarry the above items in the
Municipality of Maasin, surprisingly waive his right just after only one year
in favor of the father-in-law of now Vice Governor Raul ‘Boboy’ Tupas.
On how the case has risen from that transfer of right
to quarry, we have yet to know about the details. But as easily noticed, it is about
money on why the governor was slapped with that case at the Office of the
Ombudsman.
But that is not only what we are looking for. The case
filed against then Gov. Tupas seems to have disappeared in the course of time. We
heard nothing more after it was reported to have been filed already.
It holds true why Ilonggo lawyer Atty. Romeo Gerochi calls
the office of the Ombudsman “Office of Monalisa.” The song Monalisa claims many
dreams of obsessed men have been brought to her doorstep, but they just lie
there and they die there!
Surprisingly, the case filed in 2004, suddenly resurrected
in 2014. The governor was ordered by the Ombudsman to file his counter-affidavit.
My goodness, I don’t think this Ombudsman business is all about!
In Rafael L. Coscolluela, Petitioner, v. Sandiganbayan
First Division and People of the Philippines, Respondents, a complaint filed at
the Office of the Ombudsman in 2001 was acted and filed at the Sandiganbayan
only in 2009. (G.R. No. 191411, July 15,
2014)
On July 9, 2009, Coscolluela filed a Motion to
Quash,12 arguing, among others, that his constitutional right to speedy
disposition of cases was violated as the criminal charges against him were
resolved only after almost eight (8) years since the complaint was instituted.
The Court Ruled that the petition is meritorious. A
person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under
Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution)
which provides:
SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. This right is not limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases.
Be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all
proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a
case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with
administration of justice.
This is what got me so excited about. The case of Coscolluela
stayed for eight (8) years only while the one in Gov. Niel D. Tupas has slept
for ten (10) years in the Office of Mona... ehe, este Office of the Ombudsman. The
law says “it is not the accused’s duty to follow up the prosecution of his
case. It is the duty of the State!
I think this case will end into a Stare Decisis – Court stands firmly by things that have been
decided on cases with similar facts and have been resolved in the past. Well, I
hope to have made your day in this column. Monalisa has asked for it, unlike
Dirty Harry and me who ask others to make our day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)