Junking of cases not based on technicalities, officers linked to Feb '06 coup say
06/24/2008 | 01:33 PM
MANILA, Philippines - The 28 military officers detained for their alleged connection to the February 2006 coup on Tuesday scored the Armed Forces Philippines (AFP) spokesman for saying that the dropping of charges against them was based on mere legal technicalities.
This, as the group pressed for their immediate release, following the military's admission that it is unsure of the cases they are prosecuting.
In a three-page statement coursed through lawyer Trixie Cruz-Angeles, the military officers said that the dropping of charges against them was not based on technicality but was brought by the failure of prosecutors to prove the case against the accused.
"(T)he offenses charged cannot be 'prescribed' by any act of discretion by a panel nor by the AFP. Prescription happens as a matter of course by the expiration of the period the prosecution has to present their case. It is not a mere technicality. It is not a reward for the defense. It is a punishment for the prosecution that has failed in its obligation to expedite the proceedings," the group said.
In the statement the detained officers stressed an unusually long time the military is taking to prosecute them, noting that delays in the conclusion of their trial which leaves them in extended "incarceration."
"We should recall that many of us were detained as early as March 2006, with Brigadier General Danilo Lim and Major Jason Aquino detained ahead in February. It took five months for the formal charges to be served. Trial began in December 2006," the group said.
"It took another three months for an unsigned pre-trial advice to be given to the defense lawyers... No hearings were held on some months. Error after error on the part of the prosecution resulted in unnecessary delays, with imputations that the 'errors' were deliberate mistakes. In the meantime we had been subjected to humiliating deprivations during incarceration," the group added.
"Even now, no date has been set for the next hearing, leaving us to speculate on the reasons for the apparent continuing delay despite our lawyers’ manifestation of their willingness to hold weekly hearings," it further said.
The group also opposed AFP spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Ernesto Torres' statement that the court's decision "was a triumph of the rules as upheld by the court" saying the decision proved the contrary.
"(I)t is not a triumph of the rules. Were the rules upheld, as early as 26 February 2008, the matter of prescription should have been brought to the attention of the court martial with the presumption of acquittal weighing heavily," the group said.
"It was the obligation of the prosecution to bring up the matter, and their burden to prove that prescription could not apply. Instead, the defense lawyers brought it up, argued it and defended it against further delays. It is this spirited defense that compelled the court martial panel to see the law and its intents," it added.
In its statement, the group also scored Torres for saying that with the latest development in the trial of the detained officers, the military establishment is optimistic that it will soon get to know the truth surrounding the events that took place in February 2006.
The group said this statement is an indication of the prosecution of the officers was a mere "fishing expedition," and should warrant the immediate release of the detained officers
"The officers of the Tanay 28 have been detained on the presumption that the authorities have sufficient evidence constituting probable cause to warrant trial. By this time, the prosecution, which represents the government, should be sure of its case. If the AFP is still unaware of what they think really happened, then they admit that this trial is a mere fishing expedition, put upon the detainees in the hopes that the authorities might find evidence they can construe as guilt," the group said.
"This admission of ignorance warrants the immediate release of all officers detained for the 2006 incident. Clearly we have been illegally held for two years by authorities who themselves are unsure of the case they are prosecuting. And no, this is not a mere technicality," it added.
On Friday, the general court martial granted the accused officers' motion to dismiss charges of violation of Articles of War 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), 97 (conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline), 63 (disrespect toward the President, Vice President, Congress of the Philippines , or Secretary of National Defense) and 65 (willfully disobeying superior officer).
The court decision leaves the 28 military officers facing only one charge before the court martial - the violation of Articles of War 67 (inciting to sedition).
The court said the motion was granted after the motion after ruling that the accusations have already gone past the two-year prescription period.
The manual for court martial states that less offenses shall prescribe, or deemed dropped, if the accused are not arraigned two years after the commission of the crime. - Amita Legaspi, GMANews.TV
This, as the group pressed for their immediate release, following the military's admission that it is unsure of the cases they are prosecuting.
In a three-page statement coursed through lawyer Trixie Cruz-Angeles, the military officers said that the dropping of charges against them was not based on technicality but was brought by the failure of prosecutors to prove the case against the accused.
"(T)he offenses charged cannot be 'prescribed' by any act of discretion by a panel nor by the AFP. Prescription happens as a matter of course by the expiration of the period the prosecution has to present their case. It is not a mere technicality. It is not a reward for the defense. It is a punishment for the prosecution that has failed in its obligation to expedite the proceedings," the group said.
In the statement the detained officers stressed an unusually long time the military is taking to prosecute them, noting that delays in the conclusion of their trial which leaves them in extended "incarceration."
"We should recall that many of us were detained as early as March 2006, with Brigadier General Danilo Lim and Major Jason Aquino detained ahead in February. It took five months for the formal charges to be served. Trial began in December 2006," the group said.
"It took another three months for an unsigned pre-trial advice to be given to the defense lawyers... No hearings were held on some months. Error after error on the part of the prosecution resulted in unnecessary delays, with imputations that the 'errors' were deliberate mistakes. In the meantime we had been subjected to humiliating deprivations during incarceration," the group added.
"Even now, no date has been set for the next hearing, leaving us to speculate on the reasons for the apparent continuing delay despite our lawyers’ manifestation of their willingness to hold weekly hearings," it further said.
The group also opposed AFP spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Ernesto Torres' statement that the court's decision "was a triumph of the rules as upheld by the court" saying the decision proved the contrary.
"(I)t is not a triumph of the rules. Were the rules upheld, as early as 26 February 2008, the matter of prescription should have been brought to the attention of the court martial with the presumption of acquittal weighing heavily," the group said.
"It was the obligation of the prosecution to bring up the matter, and their burden to prove that prescription could not apply. Instead, the defense lawyers brought it up, argued it and defended it against further delays. It is this spirited defense that compelled the court martial panel to see the law and its intents," it added.
In its statement, the group also scored Torres for saying that with the latest development in the trial of the detained officers, the military establishment is optimistic that it will soon get to know the truth surrounding the events that took place in February 2006.
The group said this statement is an indication of the prosecution of the officers was a mere "fishing expedition," and should warrant the immediate release of the detained officers
"The officers of the Tanay 28 have been detained on the presumption that the authorities have sufficient evidence constituting probable cause to warrant trial. By this time, the prosecution, which represents the government, should be sure of its case. If the AFP is still unaware of what they think really happened, then they admit that this trial is a mere fishing expedition, put upon the detainees in the hopes that the authorities might find evidence they can construe as guilt," the group said.
"This admission of ignorance warrants the immediate release of all officers detained for the 2006 incident. Clearly we have been illegally held for two years by authorities who themselves are unsure of the case they are prosecuting. And no, this is not a mere technicality," it added.
On Friday, the general court martial granted the accused officers' motion to dismiss charges of violation of Articles of War 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), 97 (conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline), 63 (disrespect toward the President, Vice President, Congress of the Philippines , or Secretary of National Defense) and 65 (willfully disobeying superior officer).
The court decision leaves the 28 military officers facing only one charge before the court martial - the violation of Articles of War 67 (inciting to sedition).
The court said the motion was granted after the motion after ruling that the accusations have already gone past the two-year prescription period.
The manual for court martial states that less offenses shall prescribe, or deemed dropped, if the accused are not arraigned two years after the commission of the crime. - Amita Legaspi, GMANews.TV
