Opposition Sen. Panfilo Lacson, principal accused in the Kuratong Baleleng case, made this declaration yesterday, a day after the Supreme Court remanded the controversial case to a Quezon City regional trial court.
But a government lawyer who was involved in the prosecution hinted he may ask the court to raffle off the case which is now in the sala of Branch 81 Judge Ma. Theresa Yadao, an appointee of Lacson’s patron, former President Joseph Estrada.
State Prosecutor Peter Ong, who headed the three-man panel that indicted Lacson on the case in June 2001, said they would seek a raffling of the case since defense lawyers already raised the issue before the Court of Appeals last year.
"We might as well ask for a raffle because they had raised this (issue) before," Ong said. "After the raffle, we may proceed, based on the order of the Supreme Court, (to determine) whether the requisites of the provisional dismissal rule had been complied with."
The SC ruled on Tuesday that the Quezon City RTC should determine if the procedural points of the rule on provisional dismissal were fulfilled when the lower court dismissed the case in 1999.
Ong said he was "a bit happy" with the SC ruling since the case was not killed and made possible the reopening of the case.
But Lacson said the SC’s unanimous ruling was actually favorable to him and his 36 co-accused because the two-year prescriptive period for the revival of the multiple murder case had already lapsed when the government revived it on April 17, 2001.
The senator argued that the case was "provisionally dismissed" on March 31, 1999 by QC RTC Branch 81, which was then under Judge Wenceslao Agnir Jr. who was appointed to the Court of Appeals shortly after issuing the dismissal.
Lacson said that had the DOJ revived the case in March or February last year, they could have "lost all our defenses and arguments." But the SC was clear in saying that the two-year prescriptive period applied in the Kuratong Baleleng case.
"I’m glad that the SC had ruled fairly on the Kuratong Baleleng case. It has rejected the arguments of the government lawyers that procedural law cannot prevail over substantive law," he said.
Lacson further said they could also show proof they complied with the required notification of all the complainants in the multiple murder case as well as the consent of the accused.
Lacson also claimed that the renewed interest of government lawyers in the case was part of a campaign to persecute him because of his declared plan to run for president in 2004.
"This is not persecution. This is prosecution. It is the duty of the government to prosecute," the President said in an interview with Bombo Radyo yesterday.
In a briefing at Malacañang, acting Press Secretary Silvestre Afable said the Palace welcomed the SC decision and expressed confidence that the judicial system would be able to resolve the legal issues arising from the alleged rubout case.
"We welcome this development. It’s justice moving forward and we have full confidence in the Supreme Court as well as the lower courts," Afable said. "We know that everybody will be given due process and justice will prevail in the end. The country’s judicial system can handily cope with this case," Afable added.
Lacson also slammed Justice Secretary Hernando Perez, who claimed that the SC ruling was a victory, since the high court apparently upheld his argument that Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, or the rule on provisional dismissal, applied in the Kuratong Baleleng case.
The rule on provisional dismissal provides that criminal cases cannot be reopened after two years of its provisional dismissal.
But Ong argued that Agnir never issued a provisional dismissal of the case and in fact dismissed it outright for lack of probable cause.
"Judge Agnir did not say provisional dismissal. He said the cases would be dismissed for lack of probable cause. This is different from provisional dismissal. Agnir’s decision is very clear on this matter," Ong said.
The state prosecutor further argued that the rule on provisional dismissal could not even apply to the Kuratong Baleleng case because Agnir’s decision was promulgated on March 31, 1999 while the rule on provision dismissal only took effect in December 2000.
"I just dismissed it for lack of probable cause because at that time there was no rule yet on provisional dismissal. Without that rule, there is no question that it could be revived anytime. That was manna from heaven for the accused," Agnir told reporters.
He confirmed the SC’s findings that some of the victims’ relatives were not around to affirm the authenticity of their affidavits of desistance but their lawyer, one Godwin Valdez, was there to represent them.
"That’s not fatal because they were represented. The resolution for dismissal was sent to the lawyer. The general rule is notice to the lawyer is notice to the offended party," Agnir explained.
Agnir, who is retiring in September, said he had no choice but to dismiss the case because four witnesses had already retracted their statements accusing Lacson and 36 others.
But lawyer Arno Sanidad of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) said the real issue was substantive law and not procedural and urged Lacson to take an indefinite leave from the Senate.
"The main issue here is the victims were killed. Who killed them and why?" Sanidad asked.
"If Lacson thinks that he is not guilty. He should present his evidence in court and stop using his position in evading prosecution. Out of delicadeza (propriety) and if he is a true gentleman and an honorable senator, he should take an indefinite leave of absence," the lawyer added. - With reports from Marichu Villanueva, Jose Rodel Clapano