updated: What to do when an arrest warrant is our for you (Jun Lozada predicament)
Newspeg: “Malacañang is providing security for whistle-blower Rodolfo Lozada Jr. but it cannot assure him of immunity from legal processes, a Palace spokesperson said yesterday.” (Inquirer)
If you feel betrayed and you feel used and tossed aside, by all means, you should air your grievances. In the meantime however, someone should be taking care of your legal entanglements because these will not go away unless faced. Where an arrest warrant has been issued, and unless it is quashed, it would be served sooner or later unless and until the accused posts bail – in which case, the accused would be saved the anxiety of being accosted or harassed with it. Under the revised/ “new” rules of criminal procedure, the posting of bail does not constitute a waiver of the right to question the legality (or to raise the illegality) of the issuance of the arrest warrant, question the regularity or legality of the proceedings itself, the jurisdiction of the court itself, the lack of or irregularity of the preliminary investigation (see provisions below), as long as these questions are raised before arraignment; in other words, under the new rules of criminal procedure, the posting of bail IS NOT AN ADMISSION OR ACCEPTANCE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS,
And this is expressly stated in the new rules.
You may call for a press con if you want.
(the accused if he has ground can also seek immunity but unless and until this is granted, the arrest warrant would be served.)
(you can also bring your own photos; bring your lawyer; you can choose to go on an ordinary day with no fanfare).
Here they are:
Rule 114. Bail. “Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation.—An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case, (new)
While Section 14 provides:
“Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail.—The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. (14a)”
Posted on February 10, 2013, in constitutional law, Criminal law, News, Rules of Court and tagged arrest, Arrest warrant, bail, Business, criminal procedure, Jun Lozada, Law, Ombudsman, Palace, Rodolfo Lozada, security, Surety Bonds, Whistleblower. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.