JUN BINAY MUST BE GUILTY
Binays must be guilty of crimes!
n UNLAWFUL ARREST or ARBITRARY DETENTION
n VIOL. OF SEC. 3(e) OF RA 3019
By BERTENI CATALUNA CAUSING
A man who believes law is beautiful
even with only enough to live by
The admission by the camp of Makati Mayor Junjun Binay, wittingly or not, that they just “invited” the security guards of Dasmarinas Village to the police station made him, all his policemen who were with him during the bullying incident, and possibly Senator Nancy Binay, guilty of either UNLAWFUL ARREST or ARBITRARY DETENTION and VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(E) OF REPUBLIC ACT 3019.
Unlawful arrest is defined in Article 269 of the Revised Penal Code as an act of arresting a person without authority or without reasonable ground for the purpose of delivering the arrested person to proper authorities.
If there is no purpose of delivering to proper authorities, then the taking of custody becomes a crime of arbitrary detention.
Given above, it is sufficient that there was actual taking of custody of the security guards sufficient to hold Binay and company criminally liable, either for unlawful arrest or arbitrary detention, and all by conspiracy because they all acted with the unity of purpose.
The face of guilt is clear
From the admission that there was confrontation at the Banyan Gate of Dasmarinas Village makes it inconsistent for an invitation to the police station to take place.
Logic always says that a true invitation means the invited consented if the invited went along with the one inviting.
So that the element of pure invitation is consent of the invited.
But logic also says that “consent to be brought to the police station” cannot exist along with confronta tion, unless the confrontation has cooled down sufficient for the parties to rethink positions. But the video footage of the confrontation was long enough to preclude the happening of a cooling of heads.
Summing up, the admission that the Binay entourage was blocked at the Banyan Gate of Dasmarinas Village firmed up the proposition that a confrontation existed between the group of Binay and the security guards at the gate. For how confrontation would take place if there was no blockade at the gate? And when there was a confrontation that existed, then there was the heating up of the minds of the principal actors. There was no cooling down of the heads because if it was otherwise then there was no bringing of the security guards to the police station that happened. And what purpose would be served in bringing the security guards to the police station when any purpose other than arrest can be done right there at the gate.
Hence, even with the admissions alone of the Binay camp and the established circumstances, there are already enough pieces of evidence to prove that Binay and his companions were guilty of arbitrary detention or unlawful arrest.
The CCTV footage
It is established that a CCTV footage of the Banyan Gate incident has been uploaded to the Youtube and the URL is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6lUpkYUjk. Although it is annotated, there is no reason to doubt that it may have been spliced to show that the guards of Binay and Binay confronted the guards at the gate when they were blocked. The many acts to be spliced makes it a conclusion that it was impossible to splice it to favor one group or the other.
Nevertheless, watching the footage of the CCTV, it is very clear that the entourage of Mayor Junjun Binay was blocked by the security guards at the gate from getting inside Dasmarinas Village in Makat.
It is also very clear in the CCTV that the entourage was composed of the mayor, his sister Senator Nancy Binay, and armed men, some were in police uniforms while others were not, and there were umbrellas.
It is also very clear in the footage that when the convoy was blocked, armed men got down the three SUVs of the Binay convoy and confronted the security guards right away.
There clearly appeared in the CCTV some kind of angry commotion. Thereafter, security guards at the gate were brought away. Then the group of Binay forcibly moved up the bar at the gate and the convoy passed through.
In the same video, it is very clear that during the height of the commotion, guns were put out and it was apparent and this scene cannot be consistent with the claim that it was only an invitation when the security guards were seen frisked away.
This video is sufficient for a cunning lawyer to build up a case of arbitrary detention or unlawful arrest.
Under those circumstances of clear arrogance and the fact that there was no reason to “invite” if there was no purpose to bring the security guards to the proper authorities, even if the security guards consented to be brought to the police station, that “consent” can never be given the plain meaning of consent for who else will say “no” when confronted by the mayor and his armed guards?
Further, the admission by Binays that they brought the security guards to the police station cannot mean anything other than the purpose of preparing charges against them.
To stress, why will they invite the security guards to—of all places—the police station?
What should they discuss that there was a need to do the discussions at the police station and not at the gate where the guards had duties to perform or somewhere else near?
Invitation is no
less than arrest
The Binays cannot claim that when they brought the security guards to the police station it was just an “invitation”.
This is because arrest can be done in many manner and an act of inviting was one of them as taught us by experience and jurisprudence.
In a latest case decided by the Supreme Court, in Luz vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012, it is said that it is arrest when there is actual restraint of liberty to the person or by voluntary custody.
Hence, when voluntary custody is arrest regardless of the existence of voluntariness, then “invitation” where the security guards voluntarily went along with policemen to the police station is also arrest.
Section 2 of Rule 113, Rules of Court, defines arrest as “an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.”
Submission to the custody is also arrest under Section 2 of Rule 113.
Custodial law defines
Invitation as arrest
There is another reason why invitation is no less than an arrest.
By force of a legal persuasive effect, the definition of Republic Act 7438 that “custodial investigation” or “arrest” includes the act of inviting a person for the purpose of that law can contribute force to the use of the power of statutory construction or interpretation to conclude that “invitation” is substantial arrest.
For convenience, let us quote Section 2 of RA 7438, to wit:
“Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
xxx xxx xxx
“As used in this Act, ‘custodial investigation’ shall include the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the ‘inviting’ officer for any violation of law.
Arrest is any form of restraint ateion that they admitted was not arrest. This is so because if there was no purpose in bringing the security guards to the police station then
This is so because Republic Act 7438 defines “invitation” as arrest
Violation of Section 3(e)
Republic Act 3019
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act 3019 defines as a crime the act of causing undue prejudice to a party through manifest impartiality or evident bad faith or gross negligence. The same law punishes the act with an imprisonment of 6 years and two months to 15 years.
The act of accosting the security guards and restrain them into going to the police station is an act of causing prejudice to the party of these security guards.
The prejudice was undue because there was no legal justification to do so.
The high-handed manner of doing that was clear because it was done in evidence bad faith on the part of the mayor and his group.
Then there was an obvious conspiracy due to the clarity that their acts or individual acts were all done with the unity of the purpose.
Unlawful arrest or
After all, the facts are established, it is very clear that these are sufficient to convict Binay and company to the crime of arbitrary detention committed less than three (3) days.
This class of arbitrary detention is punishable with arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium, or from 120 days in minimum of imprisonment up to 3 years and three months or 39 months of maximum imprisonment.
It may be also punished as unlawful arrest to sentence Binay and company to arresto mayor or 31 days to 6 months of imprisonment.
Yes, if they are found guilty in any of these two crimes under the Revised Penal Code, they can still get probation.
But never mind the probation.
The cabal and brutal arrogance of power witnessed by millions of Filipinos through television and social media networks caused without doubt a big loss to the bid of their father, Vice-President Jejomar Binay, to become the President in the May 2016 elections.
In addition, they can be charged with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.