MY LETTER TO NBI CHIEF ON VIOLATION OF LAWYER'S RIGHT TO VISIT CLIENT
MY LETTER TO NBI CHIEF ON VIOLATION
OF LAWYER'S RIGHT TO VISIT CLIENT
For refusing to act on my request to be allowed to visit my clients, I wrote NBI Director Virgilio L. Mendez to inform him of what happened to me in the nighttime of 17 October 2015 and the letter to him is posted hereunder.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Causing Sabarre Castro Pelagio
Unit 1, 2368 JB
Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19
October 2015
ATTY. VIRGILIO L. MENDEZ
Director
National Bureau of
Investigation
Taft Avenue, Manila
Dear Sir,
The undersigned attorney is writing your
Good Office to formally report that he was prevented from visiting his client at
the NBI Detention Center and this happened about 10:15 p.m. of 17 October 2015.
The justification given by the duty
agent from the CRID was that he cannot give the go signal because their chief
was not around or was absent.
So we had here a situation where CRID was assigned as the Duty Office
in charge of regulating the entry of lawyers or other persons into the NBI
Detention Center at night time but the chief of the same office was absent and
its duty agent refused to act on the request for a visit made by the
undersigned at that time because his chief was not around.
The undersigned leaves it to the
Office of the Director to determine if there was any violation on this
incident, either administratively or criminally.
The undersigned wanted to visit his
client for the purpose of a conference on the scheduled filing of a pleading or
a petition and he had no more time for the conference because he had other works
to be done with other equally-important clients.
It is a criminal violation under Section 4(b) of Republic Act 7438, to
wit:
Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a)
Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating officer, who
fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation
of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos
(P6,000.00) or a penalty of
imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years,
or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also
be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of
a similar offense.
The
same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone
acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to
provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter
cannot afford the services of his own counsel.
(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or
prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or
priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate
family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or
from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of
four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with
custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure
his safety and prevent his escape.
It is very clear that the only valid
basis to prohibit a lawyer from conferring with a detainee-client for an urgent
matter like preparation of pleadings and that the lawyer had no other time to
do the same visit is when the prohibition is for the purpose of securing the
safety of the detainee and preventing that detainee from escaping.
There was no allegation that the
refusal to act on the request was for the purpose of securing the safety of the
detainee and preventing that detainee from escaping. That is, even if it can be argued that the
rule of reasonable prohibition does not apply in the case at bar because the
instant matter is about “refusal to act on the request” and it is one thing and
it is another thing to “refuse the request.”
The undersigned leave it to the
Office of the Director to exercise its discretion because the undersigned is
not interested to file any case except only to hope the incident be not repeated
and that the NBI ensure that all its agents, lawyers or otherwise, are knowledgeable
and courteous and kind to fellow lawyers to visit their clients even at nighttime.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
ATTY. BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, CE
Comments