The preliminary investigation of the two murder complaints filed against suspended Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director General Gerald Q. Bantag and several others will resume on Jan. 24 after the motion to inhibit the panel of Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors from probing the charges has been denied.
Bantag was charged as “principal by inducement” in the killings of radio commentator Percival “Percy Lapid” C. Mabasa last Oct. 3 in Las Pinas City and inmate Cristito Villamor Palana last Oct. 8 at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City.
Palana had been pinpointed by Mabasa’s self-confessed gunman Joel S. Escorial as his “middleman” in the slaying of the radio broadcaster. Escorial and his alleged accomplices have also been charged with murder and their case has been consolidated with those of Batag’s and the other suspects.
Bantag had sought the inhibition of the panel as he pointed out that the murder complaints against him are under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), among other allegations.
“In sum, while motions for inhibitions, especially those anchored on aspirations of grave prejudice and partiality, are granted with the ultimate purpose and idea of maintaining integrity and faith of the parties in our justice system, no room for inhibition can be had in these cases,” the panel’s resolution dated Jan. 17, 2023 stated.
“There is no violation of respondent Bantag’s rights to due process to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, as the Panel remains, and will continue to remain, independent and impartial in hearing these cases, more importantly in their resolution,” the resolution also stated.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion is hereby DENIED for lack of merit,” the panel ruled.
“Accordingly, the preliminary investigation is set on Jan. 24, 2023, at 2 p.m. at Room 2, Justice Hall Building, Department of Justice, Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila, for the submission of counter-affidavits of respondents,” it ordered.
In his motion for inhibition, Bantag claimed that DOJ Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla has already prejudged the cases and has direct control over the panel; that he is entitled to due process and that the cases should be heard by an impartial tribunal, and that the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) has exclusive jurisdiction in conducting the preliminary investigation of the cases.
Also, Bantag cited in his motion the Supreme Court (SC) ruling in the case of Gregory Uy vs Sandiganbayan to support his argument that OMB has jurisdiction in the murder cases.
However, the panel said SC decision “further clarified that the authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases involving public officers and employees before the regular courts does not conflict with the power of the regular prosecutors under the DOJ.”
“Undoubtedly, the power of the Ombudsman under Section 15(1) of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared concurrent authority with respect to the offense charged. There is no basis under the law and existing jurisprudence that would directly support the conclusion of respondent Bantag that the power of the OMB with respect to the offenses charged under Section 15(1) of RA 6770 is exclusive to it,” the panel said.
It pointed out that both DOJ and OMB recognize the “concurrency of jurisdiction” and even signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on March 29, 2012 which states: “The OMB and the prosecution offices of the DOJ shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the complaints for the crimes involving public officers and employees falling outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; provided, that the office where such a complaint is filed for preliminary investigation shall acquire jurisdiction over the complaint to the exclusion of the other; provided further, that the OMB may refer/endorse any complaint filed before it to any prosecution office of the DOJ having jurisdiction over the complaint.”
It explained that, for the OMB to have exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation, “it must clearly establish that the offenses charged were done in relation to respondent Bantag’s office.”
“Evidently, these offenses exist without the office of respondent Bantag given that their commission are not intimately connected with the mandate or official functions of his office. It is not an element of the offenses charged. The performance official duties and functions of the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, as mandated by law, is essentially the safekeeping and institution of reformation programs to national inmates; thus, it has no relation at all to the offenses that respondent Bantag is accused of,” it stressed.
The panel said the accusations against its members for being biased is “purely speculative, as control and supervision being exercised by the SOJ (secretary of justice) over the NPS (National Prosecution Service) does not extend to the conduct of preliminary investigation.”
“Notably, the Panel never made any statements or pronouncements against any party in these cases that would indicate a scintilla of bias and partiality,” it added.
“Meanwhile, with respect to the SOJ’s statements to the media, the same is inevitable considering that the BuCor is a constituent agency under the DOJ. Being the head of the department, the SOJ has to report and inform the public about what happened or what is happening in the department and its constituent and attached agencies, including the BuCor,” the also said.
Aside from the two murder charges, Bantag has also been charged with torture and physical injuries by two persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) at the NBP. The complainants are Ronald Usman and Jonathan Escopete.
BuCor Acting Director General Gregorio Pio P. Catapang Jr. had said that several bureau personnel will also file criminal charges against Bantag.
TAGS: #DOJ #BuCor #Bantag #Percy Lapid.