Traffic officer seeks review on ruling on complaint vs. lawyer

CEBU, Philippines - Chief Insp. Andres Bayarcal is asking the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor to review the resolution of the City Prosecutor’s Office that dismissed the complaint for oral defamation and obstruction of justice Bayarcal filed against lawyer Danilo Pilapil.

In a resolution dated October 2, Assistant Prosecutor Victor Laborte denied Bayarcal’s motion for reconsideration on the dismissal of the complaint.

In his Petition for Review before the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, Bayarcal said city prosecutor’s office committed serious errors in dismissing the cases for lack of probable cause.

“In dismissing the Compliant for obstruction to justice or violation of PD 1829, the Disposition reads that the extensive reading of the complaint’s affidavit reveals the absence of any act enumerated by law to be an obstruction to justice. On the contrary, section 1(i) of PD 1028b cites as one of the acts considered as obstruction to justice is the giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender,” the petition reads.

Bayarcal said that as a lawyer, Pilapil should know that surrendering after a traffic accident, especially if the victim dies, does not decriminalize or save the suspect from detention within the reglementary period or until brought to inquest proceedings.

He further said that Pilapil should also know that the suspect cannot be released within the reglementary period after he/she is taken into custody after a traffic accident.

“But the respondent with malice and acts unbecoming of a lawyer insisted that the suspect be released and with great disrespect to the authorities, went berserk and started to pound the chair where he was seated. His compelling behavior was designed to psyche the complaint into believing that he gave the true information of the law,” Bayarcal said.

“The respondent without doubt was giving false information contrary to what he knows under the law so that the suspect can go scot-free, thus the suspect’s detention or arrest is prevented. Is this not obstruction to justice in its simplest form?” Bayarcal’s petition further reads.

The prosecutor’s office earlier said there was no malice on the part of Pilapil when he uttered the words, “Ignorante ka man sa balaod,” to Bayarcal.

The prosecutor’s also said that Pilapil’s utterances were not made “to injure or damage the reputation of the complainant but were borne out of frustration or anger.” When respondent uttered the words, “Ignorante man ka sa balaod, he speaks in response to his duty as a lawyer to his client in exasperation of the continued refusal of the complainant or his office to receive his letter,” Laborte said. But the policeman argued that the lawyer said the words “in a disdainful and scolding manner coupled with pounding of his hands into the chair in an angry manner in the presence of many people including the complainant’s subordinates.” — Jasmin R. Uy/JMO   (FREEMAN NEWS)