Ombudsman terribly erred in convicting NBI agent
From: ATTY. BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING
See attached Motion for Reconsideration seeking for the Ombudsman to correct its manifest errors.
Ombudsman terribly erred in convicting NBI agent
The Office of the Ombudsman terribly erred in rendering decision dismissing from the service National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent Junnel Malaluan, according to lawyer Berteni C. Causing.
The legal counsel stressed that the first terrible error was committed by Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro when he disregarded the security sentinel’s logbook showing that the car allegedly used for kidnapping did not enter and did not exit the bureau’s gate at the times alleged by the complainant policemen.
Causing said the second terrible error was committed when Casimiro did not follow the command of the Constitution in Section 14 of Article VIII when it decided the case without stating the issues, reasons and the law used in its conclusion.
“The decision of the Ombudsman reveals its investigating officer, reviewing officer and Deputy Ombudsman Casimiro made the judgment by their ignorance of the law,” Causing stressed.
The wisdom of this constitutional provision, according to Causing, counsel of Malaluan, is taught in many Supreme Court decided cases, including People vs. Bugarin, which states that this requirement is indispensable “to inform the parties of the reason or reasons for the decision so that if any of them appeals, he can point out to the appellate court the finding of facts or the rulings on points of law with which he disagrees. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning.”
In rendering a decision, the Ombudsman just reiterated the six paragraphs of the complaint against the agent and then narrated in one paragraph thee side of Malaluan. Thereafter, the Ombudsman made a short cut by making a conclusion to dismiss Malaluan from the service.
Because of the grave error of the Ombudsman, the lawyer sought reconsideration of the May 23, 2012 decision.
Causing stressed the obvious lies in the complaint of the CIDG that the two (2) vehicles, a black and a silver Honda, bearing plate numbers UDT 512 and CTP 111, respectively, entered the NBI Compound along Taft Avenue after midnight of March 10, 2009 and subsequently went out.
The NBI logbook proved them wrong, Causing stressed, as there is nothing in the logbook that states that the same vehicles entered the bureau’s compound on Taft Avenue, Manila and exited thereafter.
Additionally, Causing cited that the security officer manning the gate also executed an affidavit affirming the logbook entries.
Causing argued he is more convinced that Malaluan was a collateral damage in the power struggle between then NBI Director Nestor Mantaring, the nominal complainant in this case, and NBI Deputy Director Ruel Lasalla, the direct superior of Malaluan.
Alleged kidnap victim Panayangan Demasar executed an affidavit before NBI Special Investigator Felix Señora on March 11, 2009.
Causing pointed out the date as an indication of falsity because it was impossible for Demasar to have executed such affidavit on March 11 when the letter-complaint of then Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER) chief, Police Senior Supt. Leonardo Arias Espina, was dated March 19, 2009.
The dates, Causing concluded, showed that the investigation itself was scripted if only to justify the dismissal of Malaluan from the bureau.
It was claimed that Demasar was abducted in Barangay H-2, Dasmariñas, Cavite in the morning of March 10, 2009 and he was brought to the NBI Compound along Taft Ave., Manila while the ransom negotiation for P1 million was going on.
It was also claimed that when the ransom in the amount of P340,000 was agreed, Miriam Padate y Demasar sought assistance from PACER that in turn formed a team to arrest the kidnappers at the payoff site inside the NBI Compound in the evening of March 10.
It was further claimed that Padate was accompanied by Raima Disomangkop y Apala and PACER agents but that it was only the women who entered the NBI Compound near midnight of March 10 and there the ransom payoff occurred.
Again, the logbook showed there were no women who went inside the NBI compound around those times.
In further pinning Malaluan, Causing believed that Investigator Señora manipulated the identification of the agent because it was only the picture of Malaluan that was showed to Miriam Padate. Jurisprudence requires that out-of-court identification must be done in a lineup of pictures or persons in order for the identification to be given weight.
Causing also noted that the PACER did not submit any spot or immediate report about the kidnapping, any blotter of police actions done in relation to the alleged kidnapping for ransom. The non-submission of these relevant evidence means there was no kidnapping that occurred and that there was no police action that took place.
Causing also noted that the joint affidavit of Police Chief Inspector Santos B. Sumingwa and PO1 Arnold P. Aromin cannot be believed in because it was executed on June 30, 2009, or three (3) months and twenty (20) days after the ransom payoff occurred.
Additionally, the same joint affidavit was unbelievable when it claimed that the police officers who claimed there they were there with the two women when they saw Malaluan getting off a car in front of the Manila Doctors at the corner of Taft Avenue and UN Avenue and yet they did not arrest him.
Why did they not arrest Malaluan if they were telling the truth?