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)
xxx
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)”
Newspeg: The Supreme Court in a Jan. 17 two-page minute resolution upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by former solgen Frank Chavez against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) fund in 2004.
Here’s the announcement of the Supreme Court at their website:
“In a two-page minute resolution dated January 17, 2013, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)’s dismissal of the criminal charges filed by former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the alleged misuse of Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds in 2004.
xxx
“In his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Chavez, among others, sought the reversal of the assailed Ombudsman rulings approving the resolution of a Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Investigators that recommended the dismissal of malversation charges against Arroyo for the alleged illegal transfer of P530,382,445 in OWWA Medicare Fund to the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) and of the $350,000 from the OWWA Capital Fund to several labor attachés in the Middle East during the US-Iraq crisis. (Chavez v. Arroyo, GR Nos. 203884-85, Min. Res., January 17, 2013)”
Lawyers say they’ve been pinkslipped when they get this kind of “decision”/ “resolution”– it’s usually two paragraphs, the rest of the page/ space being taken up by the title, the names of the parties, addresses, the cc’ed names again, the names of the participating justices.
A petition for review and certiorari under Rule 45 — i don’t know about you, but Rule 45 petition for review is not easy for me.
This kind of “appeal” raises only questions of law and review is not a matter of right but of “sound judicial discretion”. The following are the pertinent rules of procedure:
“Rule 45. Sec. 6. Review discretionary.—A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
“(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
“(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision. (4a)”
