Rules of Court – Page 94 – marichulambino.com

David Teniers the Younger. Guardsroom. 1642. Oil on panel. 69 x 103 cm. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia. Right-clicked from http://www.abcgallery.com

TV and on-line news outfits reported that convicted rapist Romeo Jalosjos flew in and arrived in Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norter at about 5 pm this afternoon. He granted interviews but there were no visuals and no reporters with him, so we have to take his word for it and that of the local officials quoted.

If true, he can be validly arrested without warrant, on sight, by anyone. Since he is a prisoner still serving his sentence, as the Department of Justice had stated, he is considered to have escaped such lawful detention. Here’s the pertinent provision:

“Rules of Court. Rule 113. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: “(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; “(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and “(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)” (right-clicked from lawphil.net underscoring supplied).

If true, In addition, he can be charged with evasion of sentence punishable with prision correccional medium to max, or four years and two months to six years; if found guilty thus, the penalty is in addition to his unexpired prison term (and if i were the prosecution i would oppose concurrent service of terms.). Here’s the pertinent provision:

“Revised Penal Code. Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period.”

If true, his custodians in Muntinlupa, the warden and the guards, can be charged with conniving with or consenting evasion, punishable with prision correccional medium to max with additional perpetual (since the convict is serving final judgment) special disqualification. The following the pertinent provision:

“Revised Penal Code. Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.”.

If true, those who provided him with transport, whether they were paid or not, all those who chartered a plane for him or who gave him plane tickets, and the flight staff and crew who knew who he was, and all those local officials who gave him a place to sleep or stay, can be charged with harbouring, concealing, facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe has committed an offense, etc., or “obstruction of justice” punishable with six years imprisonment, under the following provision:

“PD 1829. Section 1) c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction; xxx”

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.