Criminal law – Page 118 – marichulambino.com

Claude Monet. Studio Corner. 1861. Oil on canvas. Musee d’Orsay, Paris, France. Right-clicked from http://www.abcgallery.com

I don’t have a complete legal opinion on the “obstruction of justice” law in the blog ( one post enumerated some cases on the interpretation of Articles 150 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code on resistance to and disobedience of persons in authority; and another post on some notes on just one provision of the “obstruction of justice” law in relation to the seizing of video tapes and camera equipment of media persons during the Manila Pen stand-off and the CIDG “order” to a media organization to turn over raw footage.) I never wrote a full article on obstruction of justice because there are too many intellectual property thieves in the internet, or those who have been assigned by their employers to write articles but steal other people’s ideas and put them out as their own. So, I thought that I’d just reserve that article for a journal or publication somewhere sometime where I can get credit for it. Since I juggle practice and teaching, I get points for academic work as follows: faculty members get credits or points for published articles under the category of research or publications or creative output (points that are computed during the round of promotions if any); and they also get credit or points under the category of extension work for interviews or legal advice or legal opinion aired over television or radio, although there’s a ceiling for it, I usually exceed the ceiling for points for televised legal opinions/ interviews; so I don’t get credit for the excess ha-ha. Blogs aren’t credited at all, so no full articles and no full legal opinion here. I’m not a fountain. Anyway.

Here’s a two-paragraph answer requested by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines newsletter staff about three weeks ago, on the question of: “Are there any press freedom issues raised by incidents during the Manila Pen caper? Please discuss, two paragraphs.” It’s some sort of a forum as I understand it.

I emailed the following two short paragraphs:

Handcuffing and detaining media persons who were broadcasting live the breaking news and the aftermath of the Manila Pen caper is not just a form of invalid warrantless arrest (for being done without probable cause) therefore illegal; is not just a means to send out a “chilling effect” on media organizations; it is a far worse form of infringement: it is an extraordinary, unusual and very physical form of prior restraint. While media organizations were allowed to continue airing images and sounds, the reporters and crew themselves were physically detained and therefore effectively stopped for five hours from broadcasting their individual reports.

As an afterthought, the police said the media persons were “guilty” of “obstruction of justice” . But under said law, what is punishable is the “harbouring, concealing, and facilitating escape” of persons who may have committed a crime. Photographing, filming, interviewing, taking down notes, airing live, cannot in any way be construed as “harbouring, concealing, and facilitating escape…” unless the police means it is punishable to not actively help them capture their quarry; in which case they mean to transform us into a police state. The police, DILG, and Malacañang tax the collective imagination of the nation when they propound such excuses. Not only do they tax the imagination, they stretch the constitutional bound to breaking point – they who profess to be our law enforcers.

Grigory Gagarin. Battle of Akhatle between Russians and Circassians on May 8, 1841. 1841-1842. Oil on canvas. The Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. Right-clicked from http://www.abcgallery.com

While the modus operandi, the signature of the bomb, and manner of delivery, showed that the Batasan bomb blast was likely perpetrated, (when i use “likely” i mean statistical probability), by an armed group with military training that disregards civilian casualties and (see blog post of November 14) and knows the rudiments of propaganda, or by an armed group copycatting the modus operandi of another armed group; and that , it was aimed at the institution itself, the police authorities took the less likely theory, statistically speaking, of political assassination of Wahab Akbar being the objective of the bombing . We take their word for it because they have access to the evidence. If that theory is based on the evidence at hand, it should prevail over statistics and studies.

But that evidence was largely testimonial, likely inadequately counselled or made involuntarily, and now, recanted. In the meantime, the names of politician-suspects have been trotted in the media based on largely inadmissible evidence (see my blog post of November 20).

Now, those pieces of evidence are gone (except for the “testimony” of the former driver of one rival-politician) because of the recantation of the Malate raid witness (a former Basilan town mayor) and the Payatas raid witnesses. Where does that leave the police authorities and the CIDG?

They have the forensic evidence of Wahab Akbar and four others succumbing with the former being the most “colorful”; that’s one; of Wahab Akbar and four others sustaining the most number of wounds with the former being the most “colorful”; and the “trajectory” of the bomb shrapnel based on where it was attached, that’s two

“Colorfulness” is not evidence; as basis for a theory of the case it is also founded on statistical probability. So the police is left with “trajectory” of the bomb shrapnel. And for that, we try to take their word for it. That bomb blasts can be made to have a trajectory dedicated to one person.

The police advanced the theory that it was perpetrated by the Abu Sayyaf moonlighting as political assassins (it was their sideline, according to the police), and in this instance, moonlighting for a mastermind who was/ is a rival-politician of Akbar. That fits the armed-group-with –military-training theory, as well as the political assassination theory; the difference is the objective.

The House as target causes much discomfort: it means one of the armed groups have brought the war to the city; or a copycat has the capability to make it appear that way for the purpose of retaliation or internal propaganda.

The political assassination theory makes us sleep soundly at night: it means only the “colorful” are targets and unsafe.

We try to take the word of the police for it because we want to be able to sleep soundly at night.