People vs. Janet Lim Napoles, et al for for serious illegal detention: As of posting time, the first prosecution witness, the NBI agent who came to the aid of BenHur Luy, is being crossed on the following: whether or not he was armed with a search warrant when he entered the premises; and accused’s lawyer tried to show a CCTV footage of BenHur Luy walking on the corridor etc but was not not allowed by the Court at this time.
The prosecution needs to prove that: BenHur Luy was detained or deprived of liberty, for more than five days by the accused, to constitute the crime of serious illegal detention. Based on jurisprudence, serious illegal detention is not limited to locking up a person but includes all forms of deprivation of liberty, as follows:
“Revised Penal Code. Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another or in any manner deprive him of his liberty shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
“1.If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
“2.If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
“3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
”4.If the person kidnapped shall be a minor, female, or public officer.
“The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the offense.”
“Art. 267 was taken from… the old Penal Code. The Spanish version uses the terms “lock up” (“encerrar”) rather than “kidnap” (“sequestrar or raprar). Locking up is included in the broader term of detention, which refers not only to the placing of a person in an enclosure which he cannot leave, but also to any other deprivation of liberty which does not involve locking up” (Justice Ramon Aquino, Revised Penal Code, citing Groizard and Cuello Calon cited in Marasigan and Robles, CA 55 O.G. 8297)
Accused Janet Lim-Napoles, for serious illegal detention, has a hearing on the motion to post bail Friday and an arraignment Monday and also asks the Court to defer arraignment.
In a capital offense, if the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail shall be granted.
As a general rule, bail is a constitutional right except for capital offenses where the evidence of guilt is strong.
Therefore, if the evidence of guilt is not strong in a capital offense, bail shall be granted. For this purpose, bail hearings will have to be conducted to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong as basis for ruling whether or not the accused would remain in detention.
In other words, on Friday, tomorrow, the motion for bail cannot be granted outright: the Court would have to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. A series of hearings would be made for this limited purpose. (the evidence could be reproduced in the main case).
In the bail hearings, the prosecution is expected to present its best evidence. Not all of their evidence, but their best foot forward. If they fail, the accused walks. Bail hearings are not a walk in the park (awat na sa metaphors and clichés pleeease )
In the more immediate period, the bail hearings are going to be the show. Listen boys and girls: In the next few weeks: this is where Benhur Luy will testify, judicially. Get your schedules ready.
But not so fast for the accused. The accused needs to be arraigned first before trying to post bail. The accused cannot ask that the arraignment be deferred and at the same time ask for bail. You cannot have your palitaw/ bibingka/ sapin-sapin/cuchinta without the lingá andlatík, er, esté, and eat it too.
