Nullification of Sen. Lacson's arrest warrants is final — CA

(Updated 11 a.m.) The Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled as final its nullification of the arrest warrants against Senator Panfilo Lacson for double murder charges for the deaths of Salvador "Bubby" Dacer and driver Emmanuel Corbito in November 2000. The CA said only the Supreme Court can reinstate the arrest warrants against the senator. "We rule that the arrest warrants issued against [Lacson] cannot be implemented unless it is reinstated by the Supreme Court," said the CA's Special Sixth Division. The arrest warrants were issued by the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 18 against the senator for his alleged involvement in the Nov. 24, 2000 killing of veteran publicist Dacer and his driver Corbito. In a 16-page resolution promulgated on Friday, March 18, the CA's Special Sixth Division held that its Feb. 3, 2011 ruling that voided the arrest warrants is deemed final and executory. "The nullification of the arrest warrants is hereby declared immediately executory. All the respondents, their agents, any peace officer or law enforcer, or anybody acting on their behalf, are permanently enjoined from enforcing and implementing the arrest warrants issued in Criminal Cases Nos. 10272905 and 10272906," said the CA ruling written by Associate Justice Ramon Bato Jr. The respondents the CA was referring to were the Manila RTC Branch 18, the Department of Justice (representing the People of the Philippines), and Dacer's daughters. The CA's ruling granted Lacson's motion seeking to clarify whether its Feb. 3, 2011 ruling voiding the arrest warrants, can already be executed. In a text message to GMA News Online, Lacson's lawyer said that if the DOJ will respect the CA's latest ruling, the fugitive senator may already surface. "I have not seen any copy [of the CA resolution] yet, but if the DOJ will respect the latest resolution, then I am sure that Senator Lacson will soon be back," said lawyer Alex Poblador. Lacson has been in hiding since January 2010. Appeals denied In its March 18, 2011 resolution, the CA also denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Dacer's daughters and the DOJ, which is represented by the Office of the Solicitor General. Their appeals sought to overturn the CA's Feb. 3 ruling. "After a painstaking evaluation of the arguments advanced by the parties, we find no cogent or compelling reason to reconsider our decision promulgated on Feb. 3, 2011. Discussion again the ratio decidendi (reason) of our decision would be to belabor the issues ad infinitum (to infinity)," said the CA. The Feb. 3 ruling dismissed the double murder charges the DOJ filed against Lacson. The same ruling also nullified the arrest warrants issued by the Manila court. It made such ruling on the basis that former police officer Cezar Mancao II was not a credible witness. The CA's recent ruling can be deemed final and executory because second motions for reconsideration are prohibited pleadings. Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court provides the restriction. "No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order," the rule states. Next battleground: Supreme Court With the appellate court's latest ruling last Friday, the Dacer family is expected to take the legal battle to the Supreme Court. "We will avail [ourselves] of our legal remedy and bring this to the Supreme Court on a petition for review," said lawyer Demetrio Custodio in a text message to GMA News Online. Custodio represents Dacer's daughters, Carina, Sabina, Emily, and Amparo. CA: Mancao cannot intervene In its latest resolution, the CA likewise denied Mancao's motion to intervene in the case and to appeal the CA's ruling. Mancao is not a direct party to the case Lacson filed at the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals said Mancao has no legal personality to intervene in the instant case. "Motion for leave to intervene is not impressed with merit," said the appellate court; "Being a mere witness for the state, Mancao has no legal personality or standing to participate and/or file motions/pleadings in the instant case. The private complainant's [Mancao's] role is that of a witness for the prosecution, and his interest is limited to the civil aspect of the case," it added. Why arrest warrants are nullified The Court of Appeals' 16-page resolution dwelled on why it sustained the nullification of the arrest warrants against Lacson. The CA said that when the Manila RTC Branch 18 issued arrest warrants against Lacson in Feb. 2010, it issued an interlocutory order that is immediately executory. The CA then held that its own Feb. 3, 2011 ruling that nullified the arrest warrants is an interlocutory order as well. "Conversely, the order of the Court nullifying and setting aside the arrest warrants...should also be considered immediately executory," said the CA. The appellate also said that if Lacson can still be arrested despite the nullification of the arrest warrants, a "grotesque" scenario would be created. "If the nullification of a warrant of arrest is not immediately executory as advocated by respondents [Dacer family and DOJ], we will have a grotesque and ludicrous situation where the accused could be arrested and imprisoned despite the nullification of the arrest warrant by a higher court," said the appellate court. The CA also gave weight to Lacson's right to liberty over the state's right to enforce an arrest warrant. "Between the right of the state to enforce the arrest warrant we nullified and set aside and the constitutional right of liberty of the petitioner, the latter prevails," said the appellate court. "It is oppressive to the constitutional right to liberty of the petitioner since it would mean that, despite our findings of absence of probable cause to justify the issuance of arrest warrants, and the dismissal of the criminal cases, petitinor should be arested and imprisoned unless the Supreme Court decides to sustain our decision," it added. The CA said that Lacson should now be allowed to return to the Senate. "We nullified the arrest warrants and dismissed the unfounded charges against petitiner for two counts of murder... we should now allow the petitioner who is an incumbent senator of the Republic of the Philippines to perform his job in the Senate," it said. The CA added that arresting Lacson would constite arbitrary arrest and detention, which are prohibited by the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution. "With the nullification of the arrest warrant and the dismissal of the criminal cases, a public officer who will arrest and detain petitioner may be criminally liable for arbitrary detention. The crime of arbitrary detention is committed by a public officer who, without legal grounds, detains a person," said the appellate court. — VVP/RSJ, GMA News