Thursday, September 25, 2014

'Puerto Princesa court, prosecutor fear Hagedorn'

'Puerto Princesa court, 
prosecutor fear Hagedorn'


One of the arguments I raised in the Motion for Reconsideration is that the court and the prosecutor's office are afraid of former mayor Edward Hagedorn and this fear is the reason why these supposed women of law and justice found probable cause that the two answers I gave to a radio broadcaster's questions were libel.

The said answers rooted from the criminal complaint I filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Hagedorn because he failed to declare in his nine (9) SALN (Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth) for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 the fifty-nine (59) parcels of land  registered in his name, failed to declare his shareholdings and interests in corporations, and failed to declare his more than thirty (30) motor vehicles registered in his name.


In the resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor, its main reasons in saying why there is probable cause of libel are the following answers of the undersigned to the radio interview, to wit:


1.     The first cited interview answer:

Atty. Causing: NGAYON KUNG MA E EXPLAIN NYA IYON MALILIGTAS SYA (“Sya” referred to former Mayor Edward Solon Hagedorn)

Atty. Causing: AT PAANO I EXPLAIN…

This answer was the one I gave when I was asked by the radio interviewer of Radyo Ng Bayan-Palawan as to what would happen if the ex-mayor succeeded in explaining on the criminal charges I filed.   


2.     The second cited interview answer:

Commentator: OKAY SO, ANO ANG KULANG LAMANG PO.

Atty. Causing: KAYA NGA TAYO PINAPA SUBMIT AY PARA I READ (“read” should be “reveal”) LAHAD MO SA MADLANG PEOPLE KUNG ANONG MERON KA, HINDI YUNG MAGTATAGO TAGO KA…”


In this statement over the radio, I did not mind the preceding statement of the radio broadcaster because I continued my point that the law on SALN requires all public employees to disclose all the properties of government workers.
           

These answers do not connote any defaming meaning.  It is very clear.  When it was clear there was no libel and it is elementary to know for anybody that the answers were not libelous, what then was the reason why the prosecutor's office and the court ruled that there was libel?


There is no other justification I can find except that these persons having the duty to dispense justice feared to rule correctly.   And knowing that ex-mayor Hagedorn is the only person who is feared the most in Puerto Princesa, it means that these officials who are supposed to be bulwarks of justice ruled in such an ignorant way due to the power of fear.


A reader may read the entire copy of the motion I filed, and it is posted below:



Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALAWAN
AND PUERTO PRINCESA CITY
Fourth Judicial Region
BRANCH 48





PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
                                            Plaintiff,                                   
           

           -versus-                                                          Criminal Case No. 29526



ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING,
                              Accused.                 
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x




Motion for Reconsideration
from
Order Dated 20 August 2014
and
Motion for Cancellation and Release
of ₱15,000 Cash Bail





            The accused, by himself, respectfully moves the Honorable Court to reconsider its Order dated 20 August 2014.



The Timeliness



On 3 September 2014 the undersigned received a copy of the Order of the Court dated 20 August 2014, directing the cancellation of the bail of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) earlier posted by the accused, as well as ordering the issuance of warrant for the arrest of the accused and increasing the amount of bail to be fixed at Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00).


The fifteen (15) days within which the accused can file a motion for reconsideration from the same order are to lapse on 18 September 2014.


Hence, the filing today, 12 September 2014, of this motion for reconsideration from that order is timely.


The ground upon which this motion for reconsideration is that the non-appearance of the accused during the 20 August 2014 setting for arraignment was justified, consistent with his Undertaking.




The Discussions



Justifications
for absence



            First, may the Court be informed that the 20 August 2014 setting was set with an understanding that the accused would be asking for its cancellation because the accused would still be filing a motion for reconsideration from the Court’s determination of probable cause in this case.


            And indeed, the accused filed his Motion for Reconsideration from Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Cancel August 20, 2014 Setting.


            This Motion for Reconsideration from Determination of Probable Cause alone is sufficient as a justification for the absence of the accused in the arraignment.


            This is because the objective of the motion for reconsideration was the validity of the information for libel.  If the information is still being questioned, then no arraignment can be conducted.   And if arraignment cannot be held because of the same motion, then the presence of the accused for the August 20, 2014 arraignment was not necessary.  And if the presence of the accused was no longer necessary, then the absence of the accused is justified.


            Second, the motion to cancel August 20, 2014 arraignment was actually filed.


            And the justification for the cancellation of August 20, 2014 hearing was reasonable, which was the existence of the motion for reconsideration from the court’s determination of probable cause.


            Third, the increase of the bail ordered by the Court, from Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) is too harsh.


            It is too harsh because the accused, although he is a practicing lawyer, his income from his practice is not that big as what may have impressed the Court.


            Most of the clients of the accused are pro bono.


            To compel the accused to post additional bond of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00) will cause some disruptions in the operations of the law office of the accused.


            Fourth, the accused actually posted the Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00) bail ordered by the Court without prejudice to his right to file this Motion for Reconsideration.


            This act of the accused in posting the new bail is a manifestation of his being a man who respects the processes of the courts.


            Because the Court issued an order for the arrest of the accused and the accused did not want to be arrested, he was compelled to post cash bail of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00) again, without prejudice to his right to file a motion for reconsideration from the Order of this Court dated 20 August 2014.


            The accused posted cash bail of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Koronadal City, which the accused did because he happened to have a hearing in this city on that day.


            As proofs of the posting of cash bail, the accused attach hereto a copy of the Undertaking as ANNEX “A”, the Order of the MTCC of Koronadal directing any peace officer to refrain from arresting the accused as ANNEX “B”, and Official Receipt No. 1284479B issued on 11 September 2014 as ANNEX “C.”


            Fifth, his being a lawyer should have been considered by the Court as a badge of assurance that he will not neglect the processes of this Court.


            An act of jumping bail is sufficient for any lawyer to be disbarred.


            So that his being a lawyer should have prompted the Court to give the accused a chance first before deciding to cancel and forfeit his bail and issue another warrant for his arrest.


            The Court can actually even take recognizance of this fact that the accused is a lawyer, a fact sufficient to assure the Court that the accused will appear in Court and will never ever disrespect the Court.


            So that the Court should have reserved its power and be more restraint in issuing a warrant of arrest for an absence that was the VERY FIRST TIME yet and give the accused an opportunity first to explain why his bail should not be cancelled and forfeited in favor of the government.


            Sixth, the accused is entertaining strong belief that this Honorable Court is gripped by fear of the private complainant, Edward S. Hagedorn, who is being feared in Puerto Princesa.


            The truth of the matter is that when this libel case proceeds the accused will be petitioning to the Supreme Court for the transfer of trial venue to any court in Manila where the accused resides.


            To be honest to the Court, the accused is in a strong belief that it is influenced by former Mayor Edward S. Hagedorn in finding probable cause for libel when it is very clear there is no probable cause, in cancelling and forfeiting his Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) bail, and in issuing a warrant of arrest for the second time against the accused.


            With these circumstances, the Court should have been more restrained in showing its pangs of power because any of its action that is prejudicial to the accused will always be interpreted by the accused as an action done in compliance with the wishes of the private complainant, Edward S. Hagedorn.               
           

            Seventh, the Court should have considered that it is very costly for the accused to travel from Manila to Puerto Princesa just for the purpose of attending the hearings.


With this as a fact that cannot be disputed, the Court should have given the accused a chance to explain first why no warrant of arrest shall issue and why the bail shall not be cancelled and forfeited.


Eighth, the Court should have not granted the motion of the prosecutor to cancel and forfeit the bail of the accused because the City Prosecutor is well aware that the accused filed a motion for reconsideration from its ERRONEOUS RESOLUTION finding probable cause that the accused committed the crime of libel.

Nevertheless, the accused is now attaching a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor as ANNEX “D.”



ON CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF ₱15,000 CASH BAIL


            And because it is very clear that the non-appearance of the accused during the 20 August 2014 arraignment is justified, it is now moved of the Honorable Court to issue an order for the cancellation and release to the accused of the bail of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00).


           
The Prayer

            WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to set aside its Order dated 20 August 2014 and issue another GRANTING the motion for reconsideration and APPROVING the cancellation of the ₱15,000.00 cash bail and release the same to the accused.

            Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.  Manila for Puerto Princesa.  12 September 2014.

Causing Sabarre Castro
Unit 1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
Emails: totocausing@yahoo.com, berteni.causing@gmail.com; Telephone No.: +632-3105521


By:


BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
IBP No. 928535 / Manila IV / 01-06-2014
PTR No. 2529536 / Manila / 01-06-2014
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012
Cc:

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, 1 Marcelo Compound, Socrates Road
Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Hall of Justice, Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa



NOTICE OF HEARING



THE CLERK OF COURT
RTC of Puerto Princesa
Branch 48,
Hall of Justice, Sta. Monica,
Puerto Princesa City

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN,
1 Marcelo Compound, Socrates Road
Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Hall of Justice, Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa

Please be notified that the undersigned submits the foregoing motion to the consideration of the Honorable Court at 8:30 a.m. of 26 September 2014.


BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
Post a Comment

Amazon Contextual Product Ads

MAN OF IMPOSSIBLE MISSION